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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2009, 07:43
by avon1944
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?

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2009, 22:54
by Kryptid
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 22:56
by Prinz_Eugn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2009, 00:17
by discofishing
Can't the F-15E operate with the CFTs removed?

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2009, 14:20
by Guysmiley
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

RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fighter Ro

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2010, 18:48
by henshao
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.

RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fighter Ro

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 08:01
by madrat
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.

RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fighter Ro

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 23:26
by discofishing
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fighte

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 03:08
by henshao
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...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fi

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 10:50
by geogen
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fi

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 21:01
by madrat
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fi

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 10:41
by geogen
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 -

Re: RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fighte

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 01:06
by aaam
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fi

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 04:15
by geogen
Good post on all points, aaam.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In Th

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 18:17
by johnwill
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E I

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2011, 17:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The F-15E was structurally strengthened to be a 9G airframe at the increased basic weight of 62,000lbs. So adding 2,000 lbs of missiles and even another 4,000 lbs of external fuel (600gal centerline tank) is only increasing weight by 10%, and only dropping G available to 8.2. Now the extra weight is still going to hurt the lift-limited side of the turn, but the Super Tomcat was far from super in turning, a 6.5G airframe at a weight of 50,000lbs. Now since the F-14D weighs 44,000 lbs bone dry, you can do the math as to what happens when it is loaded up. Going to full fuel (total weight 60,000 lbs), adding the externals they always have (2*270 gal brings weight up to 63,500 lbs), and adding the same weapon load (weight now 65,500 lbs) lowers the F-14D G limit to 5G. So now you are comparing a 5G plane with a fuel fraction of 30% using the same (slightly lower rated) engines as a 8.2G plane with a fuel fraction of 43%.
And on terms of drag, the F-14 has a HUGE parasite drag coefficient, just reduced wave and induced drag for the low and high end.

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2011, 18:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Okay just ran all my numbers. Given an F-15E and an F-14D wo/AMRAAM capability (as it was when they were retired) I propose the following scenario. A long range heavy strike aircraft refuels, flies 300nm to the front line, penetrates that line by 200nm, drops a payload of 4 GPS guided one-ton bombs, and is engaged by an enemy fighter at 25K feet.

Loadout:
F-14D - 2 x AIM-9M, 2 x AIM-7M
F-15E - 2 x AIM-9M, 2 x AIM-120B

Cruise Speed (speed at which max range achieved and fight starts)
F-14D - 0.65M
F-15E - 0.80M

Fight Fuel (before having a range of only 500nm to return to tanker)
F-14D - 6880 lbs (used two 270 gal tanks during ingress)
F-15E - 12750 lbs (no external tanks used)

Cruise Speed Turn Rates in deg/sec (ITR/STR) and Acceleration in knts/sec (AB/Mil)
F-14D beginning of fight - (10/7) (5.5/2.5)
@ Bingo Fuel - (11/8 ) (6/3)
F-15E beginning of fight - (12/7) (6.5/3)
@ Bingo Fuel - (15.5/9) (9/4.5)

Best Turn rates in deg/sec@Mach (ITR/STR)
F-14D beginning of fight - (12.5@.8M / 9@1.15M)
@ Bingo Fuel - (14@.8M / 10@1.15M)
F-15E beginning of fight - (15.5@1.05M / 8@1.4M)
@ Bingo Fuel - (18@.9M / 11@1.45M)

Average AB Acceleration to "High Mach"
F-14D average 5.5 knts/sec to 1.7M
F-15E average 5.5 knts/sec to 1.65M

So under a realistic scenario the F-15E has better Instant and Sustained turn performance, better subsonic acceleration (to reclaim speed lost in turning), and more fuel to fight with. In calculating fuel used to get to the target and in calculating supersonic acceleration I took into account the lower drag carriage of the F-14Ds bombs and the much lower wave drag effects of the sweeping wing. The only thing not taken into account is the "trim drag" during cruise and G, both of which will hinder the F-14 more as it is the more stable design, especially with wings swept.

Re: RE: Re: RE: A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fighte

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 22:10
by fighterman88
madrat wrote:
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.


Actually the reason the F-15 survived is cause the F-15 for one is land based only, and the F-15 has also been waiting for it's eventual replacement by the F-22 raptor and it being the only proven dedicated Air superiority/Interceptor Fighter in ACC's (Air Combat Command) inventory the DoD didn't really have much of a choice.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 22:33
by count_to_10
Holy Thread Resurrection, Batman!
...
Anyway, I suspect that the fact that the F-15 was flown by a number of allied countries while the F-14 was only flown by an enemy had something to do with their respective longevities.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 22:01
by sprstdlyscottsmn
well, if we are going to resurrect a thread I may as well fix a 3 year old error in my numbers. The F-15E is 8.2G capable at 37,500lb, not 9G at 62,000lb. And it weighs in at... 37,500 with CFTs and no fuel or weapons. They both have very poor G loads available for the close in fight but could be excellent missile slingers.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 12:14
by bazdriverback
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:well, if we are going to resurrect a thread I may as well fix a 3 year old error in my numbers. The F-15E is 8.2G capable at 37,500lb, not 9G at 62,000lb. And it weighs in at... 37,500 with CFTs and no fuel or weapons. They both have very poor G loads available for the close in fight but could be excellent missile slingers.


Not exactly right. The 37500lbs design gross weight 9G limit applies to the F-15A to D version. The F-15E has a 40000lbs design gross weight limit at 9G.

One more comment: as long as an F-15E is configured with CFT and Navigation/targeting pods, it's no match in close-in performance vs Any F-15A/C PW220 aircraft. But without those components an F-15E PW229/GE129 will match the Albinos Eagle in subsonic flight and out-fly it in supersonic performances(acceleration and turning).

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2014, 00:51
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:well, if we are going to resurrect a thread I may as well fix a 3 year old error in my numbers. The F-15E is 8.2G capable at 37,500lb, not 9G at 62,000lb. And it weighs in at... 37,500 with CFTs and no fuel or weapons. They both have very poor G loads available for the close in fight but could be excellent missile slingers.


I really liked your assestment of the F-14s and Strike Eagle's IST and STD turn rates and acceleration time 3 years ago Sprst.
But
if there were any errors on that assesment, would you mind rewriting it again with your current findings
a million thanks there bro.

Ow and how would an F-15C compare to those 2?

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2014, 17:24
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I am currently working on another comparison, but I will see what I can do.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 13:39
by bazdriverback
For those who love Graphs. Based on flight manuals. Of note; there is no F-15E data on this graph, but an F-15E/PW-229 or GE-129 would out-turn the F-15C in supersonic if configured in a pure air-to-air, without CFT,LANTIRN.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 22:46
by ruderamronbo
bazdriverback wrote:
F-15CvsF-16CvsSu-27PvsF-14AvsF-4E 10000ft turn performance with AAM.pdf
For those who love Graphs. Based on flight manuals. Of note; there is no F-15E data on this graph, but an F-15E/PW-229 or GE-129 would out-turn the F-15C in supersonic if configured in a pure air-to-air, without CFT,LANTIRN.


Which will never happen BTW :D

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2014, 11:57
by bazdriverback
ruderamronbo wrote:
bazdriverback wrote:
F-15CvsF-16CvsSu-27PvsF-14AvsF-4E 10000ft turn performance with AAM.pdf
For those who love Graphs. Based on flight manuals. Of note; there is no F-15E data on this graph, but an F-15E/PW-229 or GE-129 would out-turn the F-15C in supersonic if configured in a pure air-to-air, without CFT,LANTIRN.


Which will never happen BTW :D



Hello,

Never say "never". F-15C and F-4E should never have confronted F-4E (two Iranian F-4E shot down by two Saudi F-15C in 1984). I will say this should not happen. :D

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 05:37
by zero-one
Hmmm so what if one day F-35As go against F-35Cs or F-22s. :mrgreen:

By the way, the Graph posted is a bit confusing in my untrained eyes.

The Red F-15C constantly out turns the Blue F-16 graph, I thought it was the other way around, and its a lightly loaded F-16 to.

And the Su-27 graph has a 6.7 G limit in the Transonic range and another limit at the supersonic range? whats that all about.

The F-14 was also a bit unfairly loaded with 3,000 lbs more fuel, while all the other Heavy class fighters were loaded with around 6,000 lbs. Not to mention Aim-54s are HEAVY as well.

Anyway. Can some one put a few details on the graph?

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 18:31
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:Hmmm so what if one day F-35As go against F-35Cs or F-22s. :mrgreen:

By the way, the Graph posted is a bit confusing in my untrained eyes.

The Red F-15C constantly out turns the Blue F-16 graph, I thought it was the other way around, and its a lightly loaded F-16 to.

And the Su-27 graph has a 6.7 G limit in the Transonic range and another limit at the supersonic range? whats that all about.

The F-14 was also a bit unfairly loaded with 3,000 lbs more fuel, while all the other Heavy class fighters were loaded with around 6,000 lbs. Not to mention Aim-54s are HEAVY as well.

Anyway. Can some one put a few details on the graph?




The 4 aircraft are just compared at a single weight point and single altitude that being 10,000ft and Max AB thrust - its probably all there was as available data.

The thick lines that go across the middle are for sustained turn

The Sustained turn lines for the F-16/15/4 match up some old manuals at static weight points - and the F-15 has been taken down 500 lbs to account for ordnance - so the red lines been bumped up - as you would expect from some one called Bazdriver :D (the same BazDriver from years back?). All being said there is still not much in that.

The thin lines that go to the top are max turn rate - and I haven't seen anything for the Su-27SK and F-15C regarding this so would be good to see where this is from.

OWS = Overload Warning System - a system the F-15C has - it allows 9G I think in later Cs

Limits for the Su-27 are for the 1992 Su-27SK export version for which there is a manual (kinda). States Max Operational overloading for ~47,000 lbs is given as 8.0G (< M0.85) 6.5G and 7.0G (>M1.25). Not unusual - other jets have similar limits.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 19:03
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Interesting for me to see that even under that load the A model Tomcat goes from a STR equaling the Viper at lower speeds down to the Phantom at higher speeds when the wings start sweeping back. Too bad I could never get my hands on the charts of the D model.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 19:49
by mixelflick
The whole F-15 downing F-4's was interesting to me, but not as interesting as Eagles downing Foxbats.

Although some were downed, F-15 fired something like 7 Sparrows/AIM-9's at Foxbats - who simply outran them. I think if the Iraq's were flying Mig-31's, the situation would have been different.

Those 2 mixing it up wouldn't be pretty, and the F-15's unbeaten streak may not have been intact. Scary thought, but the potential still exists for these 2 to come to blows...

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 21:41
by basher54321
Actually should I be worried that the Su-27SK manual shows it can pull 24 AOA units at M0.5 - hope that's just coincidence?? and the F-15 curve follows a very similar relative path.........

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 21:59
by basher54321
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Interesting for me to see that even under that load the A model Tomcat goes from a STR equaling the Viper at lower speeds down to the Phantom at higher speeds when the wings start sweeping back. Too bad I could never get my hands on the charts of the D model.


Yes difficult to get a picture with those swing wings - and around M0.6 there is nothing in it at these weights - just the poor old F-4E lagging

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 23:36
by zero-one
basher54321 wrote:

The 4 aircraft are just compared at a single weight point and single altitude that being 10,000ft and Max AB thrust - its probably all there was as available data.



However according to U. S. Air Force Viper’s pilots, Lieutenant Colonel Philipe “Rico” Malebranche,
Rico wrote:the F-16 can do very well against the F-15. The F-16 is small, light and agile: although it has a lower maximum speed and rate of climb, it has a smaller Radar Cross Section and, once on the merge, it’s harder to spot. Furthermore, its turn rate is impressive: it does not lose much energy in turns (unlike, for instance, a Mirage 2000) and can outmaneuver the F-15 in low altitude dogfights.


Read more: http://theaviationist.com/2012/12/10/viper-dogfight/

I would expect 10,000 feet to be considered as "low altitude". They both have around 50% of internal fuel and 6-8 missiles.

but the F-15 is still generally superior. Is the F-15's stable airframe and low wing loading design superior to the Viper's relaxed static stability and LERX design?

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 23:52
by KamenRiderBlade
bazdriverback wrote:
F-15CvsF-16CvsSu-27PvsF-14AvsF-4E 10000ft turn performance with AAM.pdf
For those who love Graphs. Based on flight manuals. Of note; there is no F-15E data on this graph, but an F-15E/PW-229 or GE-129 would out-turn the F-15C in supersonic if configured in a pure air-to-air, without CFT,LANTIRN.


As great as that graph is, it's for a specific altitude with a specific scenario.

Since most of these Aircraft will never release their full EM charts to the public that covers all major altitudes and loads and scenarios.

I highly doubt there is a complete set of EM charts available to the public for F-4E, F-14A, F-15C, F-16C, SU-27 across all range, loads, and scenarios

And I can understand that since there is a need for OpSec.

So even if we compare F-14 vs F-15, unless you've been on the inside and have seen both sets of data, flown at least one of those planes, we'll never get a even remotely accurate picture of how they really perform

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 00:46
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:I would expect 10,000 feet to be considered as "low altitude". They both have around 50% of internal fuel and 6-8 missiles.

but the F-15 is still generally superior. Is the F-15's stable airframe and low wing loading design superior to the Viper's relaxed static stability and LERX design?



The chart doesn't show the F-15 as being superior - its just shows single weight points - and looks at published turn rates - its doesn't show you any of the many other factors that might give one the edge over the other. The data for sustained turn rates looks adjusted from a 1984 F-15 manual - and that's being compared with a Block 50 - which as you know is a redesigned A-G version with about 5000 lbs more weight than the original.

If you compare the peak STR values with both clean or with an A-A load they are very similar to 40000 ft - pretty good for a bomber.

Every major fighter since the F-16 including the F-22 and Su-27 has been designed with similar principles - the F-15 is almost a 3.5Gen design 8) - doesn't mean it cant have a good turn though - check out the F-102A!

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2015, 12:20
by tme908
In the war of Iran and Iraq some of suudi arabistan`s f15s fought with Iranian f14 tomcats and the tomcat them all. I think this will prove that the tomcats are better than f15s in dogfights but we have to know that the pilots are very important too. :)

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2015, 23:41
by rotosequence
tme908 wrote:In the war of Iran and Iraq some of suudi arabistan`s f15s fought with Iranian f14 tomcats and the tomcat them all. I think this will prove that the tomcats are better than f15s in dogfights but we have to know that the pilots are very important too. :)


I've never seen or heard of an account of F15s engaging F-14s during the Iran-Iraq war before. Do you have a source you can point us to?

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2015, 02:05
by sergei
I would expect 10,000 feet to be considered as "low altitude". They both have around 50% of internal fuel and 6-8 missiles.

but the F-15 is still generally superior. [/quote]

F-14
ammo 188*2+510*2+1040*2=3476
fuel more 50%
F-15
ammo 188*2+335*6=2386
fuel less 50%

Graph made Not in favor of F15 at all, how could you think so?!!

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2015, 03:49
by huggy
tme908 wrote: I think this will prove that the tomcats are better than f15s in dogfights...

Put down the crack pipe.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 01:41
by old.iraqi.air.force
tme908 wrote:In the war of Iran and Iraq some of suudi arabistan`s f15s fought with Iranian f14 tomcats and the tomcat them all.

This never happened,OIAF were detecting and seeking any Iranian air force activity over the gulf region during the war, to secure combat sorties on Kharg Island and naval units or oil tankers.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 01:41
by old.iraqi.air.force
huggy wrote:Put down the crack pipe.

:thumb:

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 02:06
by Obi_Offiah
huggy wrote:
tme908 wrote: I think this will prove that the tomcats are better than f15s in dogfights...

Put down the crack pipe.

Then pick up the spliff and pass it around. I would like a wild imagination too. :P

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 15:52
by captain_dalan
basher54321 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Interesting for me to see that even under that load the A model Tomcat goes from a STR equaling the Viper at lower speeds down to the Phantom at higher speeds when the wings start sweeping back. Too bad I could never get my hands on the charts of the D model.


Yes difficult to get a picture with those swing wings - and around M0.6 there is nothing in it at these weights - just the poor old F-4E lagging


There is another fact that should be noted. The chart here presents the "hard wing" F-14. In other words an F-14 that either because of pilot override or mechanical defect has its maneuvering flaps and slats disabled. With the flaps/slats on auto flight computer control, the thing peaks at 13.5 deg/s at 10000 ft, in the 0.55-0.60 mach region, thus out turning everything but the Flanker, which it matches. And that is with 3000 lbs more fuel. Level the playing field and suddenly it is much more competitive in the subsonic turning arena. Trans sonic is whole different thing though.

And yeah.... i agree.... if only we could find the GE110 powered cat E-M charts..... that would be fun :mrgreen:

BTW.... hello everyone! A long time lurker here :)

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2015, 19:46
by tme908
But I'm sure that this happened. First two f-4 phantom went to protect the sky but one of the phantom's crashed with one of the f-15's and the other one heavily damaged by missle. After that the tomcats come for defending and they succeeded. One american magazine said that one of the american pilot was the supervisor of the f-15s group.
You search for this in the books about the war of Iran and iraq

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2015, 14:51
by netcentric
tme908 wrote:But I'm sure that this happened. First two f-4 phantom went to protect the sky but one of the phantom's crashed with one of the f-15's and the other one heavily damaged by missle. After that the tomcats come for defending and they succeeded. One american magazine said that one of the american pilot was the supervisor of the f-15s group.
You search for this in the books about the war of Iran and iraq



I probably should not respond, as it is best to let trollish posts just pass by unattended.
But part of me says at least respond so that people don't mistakenly believe this actually happened.

Most posters here would be familiar with the Saudis shooting down two Iranian F-4's over Al Arabiyah (50 miles northeast of Jubail in Saudi Airspace) in 1984. The Iranians had been for some time attacking shipping and crossing into Saudi airspace.

The long version of the story is that the Saudis got tired of it and shot the two Iranian F-4's down with their F-15's
The end.

If TME908 had any real information.... he would have posted a link. He did not....

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2015, 17:30
by huggy
tme908 wrote:You search for this in the books about the war of Iran and iraq

Tell you what...
Why don't YOU search for it. And when you find it, post it here for me to read, ok? Thanks.

Now back to your regularly scheduled crack pipe.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2015, 18:41
by neurotech
rotosequence wrote:
tme908 wrote:In the war of Iran and Iraq some of suudi arabistan`s f15s fought with Iranian f14 tomcats and the tomcat them all. I think this will prove that the tomcats are better than f15s in dogfights but we have to know that the pilots are very important too. :)


I've never seen or heard of an account of F15s engaging F-14s during the Iran-Iraq war before. Do you have a source you can point us to?

As I understood, the RoE prohibited US fighter aircraft from engaging and pilots were instructed not to engage Iranian fighters, either during the Iran-Iraq war or during the Gulf War in '91, or during the aftermath (Northern Watch). This was especially so for the F-14s as the F-15 pilot would require confirmation of hostile intentions (eg. not just flying off course) as well as confirmation that its Iranian. Luckily for both sides, the IRIAF didn't show any hostile intentions during this time, and this was never tested. There were a few cases of Iranian aircraft being escorted out of Iraqi airspace by US fighter aircraft without incident, and likely a few cases cases of US fighters being escorted out of Iranian airspace.

Would a RSAF or IDFAF F-15 engage an Iranian F-14? Probably not. In most cases, the F-14 avoided closing to within visual range.

One feature of the F-14 is the TCS system that enables visual ID of an aircraft at longer range. The F-14A crew would be able to determine its an F-15 and not a MiG-25 from over 20 miles. The F-14D AN/AAS-42 IRST was good to over 80 miles. The F-14 might have an advantage over a F-15E (with an older targeting pod) in tracking the target at 15-20 mile range, but the F-15E would probably carry AIM-120s providing advantages at the merge. Its really a question of who detects who, and at what range to control the merge.

The newer F-15E(SA) can use an upgraded Sniper XR pod to target a bandit, and probably fire an AIM-9 without the bandit detecting missile lock.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2015, 08:52
by captain_dalan
Image

I hope the image shows, if not i may have to upload it on a separate account. What i did here is, i made an attempt to show the STR of the F-15C, F-14A, F/A-18C and Su-27B for similar relative fuel states (by no means equal states).

The dark blue line is F-14A, with 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and 60% internal fuel (around 9000 lbs), total weight just short of 54000 lbs
The red line is F-15C, with 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and 50% internal fuel (around 6800 lbs), total weight of about 41000 lbs
The black line is F/A-18C, with 2 AIM-7, 2 AIM-9, and 60% internal fuel (around 6500 lbs), total weight of 33700 lbs
The purple line is Su-27B, with 2xAA-11, 2xAA12, and 50% internal fuel (around 10000 lbs), total weight of 47850 lbs

Just trying to illustrate the comparative effects of different loads on the turning performance. I did not include the Viper, as it would "overload" the chart, but with 50% internal fuel, 2 AIM-120 and 4 AIM-9 it is almost a verbatim copy of the F-15C, only slightly out performing it (not even 1/2 a degree) and closely matching the F-14A in the supersonic region of the envelope.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2015, 15:25
by sergei
captain_dalan wrote:Image

I hope the image shows, if not i may have to upload it on a separate account. What i did here is, i made an attempt to show the STR of the F-15C, F-14A, F/A-18C and Su-27B for similar relative fuel states (by no means equal states).

The dark blue line is F-14A, with 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and 60% internal fuel (around 9000 lbs), total weight just short of 54000 lbs
The red line is F-15C, with 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and 50% internal fuel (around 6800 lbs), total weight of about 41000 lbs
The black line is F/A-18C, with 2 AIM-7, 2 AIM-9, and 60% internal fuel (around 6500 lbs), total weight of 33700 lbs
The purple line is Su-27B, with 2xAA-11, 2xAA12, and 50% internal fuel (around 10000 lbs), total weight of 47850 lbs

Just trying to illustrate the comparative effects of different loads on the turning performance. I did not include the Viper, as it would "overload" the chart, but with 50% internal fuel, 2 AIM-120 and 4 AIM-9 it is almost a verbatim copy of the F-15C, only slightly out performing it (not even 1/2 a degree) and closely matching the F-14A in the supersonic region of the envelope.

This graph meaningless .
Not only that here the presentation of different types of aircraft they are presented with a different amount of fuel and armament which completely invalidates this data.Also, analysis of these configurations not available in respect of the flight range, combat radius, payload.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 08:25
by captain_dalan
sergei wrote:
captain_dalan wrote:Image

I hope the image shows, if not i may have to upload it on a separate account. What i did here is, i made an attempt to show the STR of the F-15C, F-14A, F/A-18C and Su-27B for similar relative fuel states (by no means equal states).

The dark blue line is F-14A, with 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and 60% internal fuel (around 9000 lbs), total weight just short of 54000 lbs
The red line is F-15C, with 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and 50% internal fuel (around 6800 lbs), total weight of about 41000 lbs
The black line is F/A-18C, with 2 AIM-7, 2 AIM-9, and 60% internal fuel (around 6500 lbs), total weight of 33700 lbs
The purple line is Su-27B, with 2xAA-11, 2xAA12, and 50% internal fuel (around 10000 lbs), total weight of 47850 lbs

Just trying to illustrate the comparative effects of different loads on the turning performance. I did not include the Viper, as it would "overload" the chart, but with 50% internal fuel, 2 AIM-120 and 4 AIM-9 it is almost a verbatim copy of the F-15C, only slightly out performing it (not even 1/2 a degree) and closely matching the F-14A in the supersonic region of the envelope.

This graph meaningless .
Not only that here the presentation of different types of aircraft they are presented with a different amount of fuel and armament which completely invalidates this data.Also, analysis of these configurations not available in respect of the flight range, combat radius, payload.


In case you missed the second part of the text, the goal of the graph is to illustrate the change in performance as a result of changing the load, and as the data is taken from the performance manuals i think it's quite valid, no matter weather we like the outcome or not :wink:

As for the different fuel states, it's actually not a problem at all. They are dictated by the doctrinal use of the aircraft. I.E. the NAVY planes are considered to be in a "combat" configuration at 60% internal fuel (unlike the AF planes at 50%), because they need the extra fuel as a safety margin during the arrested landings. What do the different fuel states mean? Simply that the different planes are expected to fight at different ranges from the base/carrier. Another example: the F-14A was expected to perform its CAP at 150-250 nm the F/A-18A/C at 120 or less (while the strike radius would be 500 nm to 300 nm comparatively ). In regards to the Flanker, the large fuel load meant that the Soviets were finally able to contend the US air superiority far out shore (withing 500 nm from nearest base), thus prompting the need for more assets being dedicated to escort duty.

But if you like a comparison based on similar fuel loads and same quantity of externals, i can give you one. It just wouldn't represent the load most common to encounter, for the sated mission profile. A third example: the Su-27 when flying overland air superiority is often considered to be at "combat load" with 8000-9000 lbs of fuel and 8 AAMs instead of 10000 lbs of fuel and 4 AAMs as given above.

EDIT: where did that chart go? :?:

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 09:26
by mrigdon
captain_dalan wrote:In case you missed the second part of the text, the goal of the graph is to illustrate the change in performance as a result of changing the load, and as the data is taken from the performance manuals i think it's quite valid, no matter weather we like the outcome or not :wink:


I think he's upset because you didn't generate your graph based on airshow sorties, where the Su-27 really shines 8)

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 12:49
by sferrin
Note how the Tomcat beats them at low speed (wings out) and at very high speed (glove vanes out)? With the glove vanes out it could supposedly pull 7.5gs at Mach 2. That's F-22 level turning.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 14:55
by captain_dalan
mrigdon wrote:
captain_dalan wrote:In case you missed the second part of the text, the goal of the graph is to illustrate the change in performance as a result of changing the load, and as the data is taken from the performance manuals i think it's quite valid, no matter weather we like the outcome or not :wink:


I think he's upset because you didn't generate your graph based on airshow sorties, where the Su-27 really shines 8)


LOL! I am yet to see a transonic airshow at 10000 ft. Until then i'd prefer to use overall envelopes to compare the birds :D
Most airshow performances are far too low, far too slow and at far too light loads to form a significant part of the envelopes for a comparison anyway. In this case, it would only account for the 100-250 KIAS region. For the Flanker's post-stall performance, probably even lower then that.

sferrin wrote:Note how the Tomcat beats them at low speed (wings out) and at very high speed (glove vanes out)? With the glove vanes out it could supposedly pull 7.5gs at Mach 2. That's F-22 level turning.


Pretty much so, yes. Although at this altitude because of the relatively low maximum speed (around 750-760 KIAS or 1.4 true mach), the supersonic advantage is a relatively small part of the envelope. Above 20000 ft this advantage becomes more substantial at the expense of the low-mid subsonic advantage. What the graph does not show is the acceleration advantage which is actually more important then the top speed itself. All this comes at a pronounced disadvantage in the high subsonic-transonic turning capability and thrust to weight, mostly because of the extra weight and the under powered engines, when the Tomcat gets outperformed by pretty much every bird that came out after it. I doubt even the F110 engines could help much with the 10% increased thrust in the transonic region. In my opinion (not a fact, just an estimate), it would probably serve to equate it with the Flanker in the above chart at best, but no much more.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 17:23
by KamenRiderBlade
Where was that nice chart?

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 19:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
captain_dalan wrote:I doubt even the F110 engines could help much with the 10% increased thrust in the transonic region.


TF30 was rated for 20,900lbf in full AB
F110-400 was rated for 26,000lbf in full AB

Thats a 24%increase, not 10. F110s are also known for their phenomenal dynamic thrust range, speeds in excess of 1.3 mach were seen at sea level. Pilots who flew both have stated that flying the GE birds in mil power FELT like the old TF30s in zone 3 afterburner. However those birds had the vane removed/welded shut so they lost the high end turning performance.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 20:53
by sergei
captain_dalan wrote:
sergei wrote:
captain_dalan wrote:Image

I hope the image shows, if not i may have to upload it on a separate account. What i did here is, i made an attempt to show the STR of the F-15C, F-14A, F/A-18C and Su-27B for similar relative fuel states (by no means equal states).

The dark blue line is F-14A, with 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and 60% internal fuel (around 9000 lbs), total weight just short of 54000 lbs
The red line is F-15C, with 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and 50% internal fuel (around 6800 lbs), total weight of about 41000 lbs
The black line is F/A-18C, with 2 AIM-7, 2 AIM-9, and 60% internal fuel (around 6500 lbs), total weight of 33700 lbs
The purple line is Su-27B, with 2xAA-11, 2xAA12, and 50% internal fuel (around 10000 lbs), total weight of 47850 lbs

Just trying to illustrate the comparative effects of different loads on the turning performance. I did not include the Viper, as it would "overload" the chart, but with 50% internal fuel, 2 AIM-120 and 4 AIM-9 it is almost a verbatim copy of the F-15C, only slightly out performing it (not even 1/2 a degree) and closely matching the F-14A in the supersonic region of the envelope.

This graph meaningless .
Not only that here the presentation of different types of aircraft they are presented with a different amount of fuel and armament which completely invalidates this data.Also, analysis of these configurations not available in respect of the flight range, combat radius, payload.


In case you missed the second part of the text, the goal of the graph is to illustrate the change in performance as a result of changing the load, and as the data is taken from the performance manuals i think it's quite valid, no matter weather we like the outcome or not :wink:

As for the different fuel states, it's actually not a problem at all. They are dictated by the doctrinal use of the aircraft. I.E. the NAVY planes are considered to be in a "combat" configuration at 60% internal fuel (unlike the AF planes at 50%), because they need the extra fuel as a safety margin during the arrested landings. What do the different fuel states mean? Simply that the different planes are expected to fight at different ranges from the base/carrier. Another example: the F-14A was expected to perform its CAP at 150-250 nm the F/A-18A/C at 120 or less (while the strike radius would be 500 nm to 300 nm comparatively ). In regards to the Flanker, the large fuel load meant that the Soviets were finally able to contend the US air superiority far out shore (withing 500 nm from nearest base), thus prompting the need for more assets being dedicated to escort duty.

But if you like a comparison based on similar fuel loads and same quantity of externals, i can give you one. It just wouldn't represent the load most common to encounter, for the sated mission profile. A third example: the Su-27 when flying overland air superiority is often considered to be at "combat load" with 8000-9000 lbs of fuel and 8 AAMs instead of 10000 lbs of fuel and 4 AAMs as given above.

EDIT: where did that chart go? :?:

"the goal of the graph is to illustrate the change in performance as a result of changing the load"
For it is necessary to take one plane and set graph with different load-the amount of fuel,
ie 3-4 line performance characteristics for 1-3 aircraft not 5 different planes with different load with 1 performance characteristic for each.
”the Su-27 when flying overland air superiority”
combat load air-air = 6 R73+4 R27, 8 × Р-27, 8 × Р-77+ 4 × Р-73, 6 × Р-73
combat load fuel: max 9 400(20,724 lb) / main 5 240kg(11,500lb)

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 02:52
by captain_dalan
sergei wrote:<snip>
"the goal of the graph is to illustrate the change in performance as a result of changing the load"
For it is necessary to take one plane and set graph with different load-the amount of fuel,
ie 3-4 line performance characteristics for 1-3 aircraft not 5 different planes with different load with 1 performance characteristic for each.
”the Su-27 when flying overland air superiority”
combat load air-air = 6 R73+4 R27, 8 × Р-27, 8 × Р-77+ 4 × Р-73, 6 × Р-73
combat load fuel: max 9 400(20,724 lb) / main 5 240kg(11,500lb)

Actually it illustrated the change in performance as a result of the change in load from the chart on page 3 of this forum :)

As for the second part, don't get me wrong, but the maximum payload for an AC is not exactly the same as the "combat" load. The combat load is as a general rule somewhat lower and depends on tactical doctrine and mission considerations. That usually means the conditions under which an engagement is likely expected to occur. I.E. for the F-14 there are 2 air superiority combat loads that i know of, the one mentioned above and the 4+2 (sparrow and sidewinder) combinations. So the NAVY expected the F-14 to engage in ACM with 60% of it's internal fuel and with all or most of it's missiles still on board. There are of course other possible loads (such as CAP and fleet defense).

For the Su-27 the 6+4 is the maximum payload, but the Soviet doctrine did not expect it to dogfight under that much weight. That is why the combat loads are usually 4+4 or 2+2. This means the tactical use of the airplane required or expected some of the missiles to be expended prior to the merge or not be loaded at all. And for overland missions, very often the plane would not even takeoff with full internal fuel. In fact this kind of strategic flexibility was one of the reasons why the plane was designed with such a large internal fuel capacity. Now, if you open the Su-27 performance manual (it's in Russian, but math is pretty much the same in all languages), you'll notice the performance charts given are never for the full load, neither for fuel nor for missiles.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
captain_dalan wrote:I doubt even the F110 engines could help much with the 10% increased thrust in the transonic region.


TF30 was rated for 20,900lbf in full AB
F110-400 was rated for 26,000lbf in full AB

Thats a 24%increase, not 10. F110s are also known for their phenomenal dynamic thrust range, speeds in excess of 1.3 mach were seen at sea level. Pilots who flew both have stated that flying the GE birds in mil power FELT like the old TF30s in zone 3 afterburner. However those birds had the vane removed/welded shut so they lost the high end turning performance.


Yeah, but those are static values for the thrust. They don't account for the losses because of inlet geometry, losses inflicted by the thinner air at altitude or the increases because of the air flow speed. I.E. the installed thrust for the F-14A is closer to 17000lb on the ground and can go to more then 21000lb when transonic at sea level. However, up above 50000ft, even in zone 5 there is hardly enough thrust to keep the plane level.

KamenRiderBlade wrote:Where was that nice chart?

I have no idea, it just disappeared...

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 04:14
by sergei
"Actually it illustrated "
It illustrates how different planes with different load have different characteristics = this chart does not show nothing .

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 05:42
by mrigdon
sergei wrote:this chart does not show nothing .


Exactly, this chart showed (where did it go? :wink: ) turn performance of a number of combat aircraft at comparable loadout.

Why are you arguing with yourself?

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 09:11
by sergei
mrigdon wrote:
sergei wrote:this chart does not show nothing .


Exactly, this chart showed (where did it go? :wink: ) turn performance of a number of combat aircraft at comparable loadout.

Why are you arguing with yourself?

OK you win i give up

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 14:06
by captain_dalan
mrigdon wrote:
Exactly, this chart showed (where did it go? :wink: ) turn performance of a number of combat aircraft at comparable loadout.

Why are you arguing with yourself?

Maybe a moderator removed it? Or the link could have gone bad.... I can repost it if you like, either through an image sharing service or if the forum allows it, a direct upload?

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 18:02
by basher54321
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
captain_dalan wrote:I doubt even the F110 engines could help much with the 10% increased thrust in the transonic region.


TF30 was rated for 20,900lbf in full AB
F110-400 was rated for 26,000lbf in full AB

Thats a 24%increase, not 10. F110s are also known for their phenomenal dynamic thrust range, speeds in excess of 1.3 mach were seen at sea level. Pilots who flew both have stated that flying the GE birds in mil power FELT like the old TF30s in zone 3 afterburner. However those birds had the vane removed/welded shut so they lost the high end turning performance.

===========================================

Yeah, but those are static values for the thrust. They don't account for the losses because of inlet geometry, losses inflicted by the thinner air at altitude or the increases because of the air flow speed. I.E. the installed thrust for the F-14A is closer to 17000lb on the ground and can go to more then 21000lb when transonic at sea level. However, up above 50000ft, even in zone 5 there is hardly enough thrust to keep the plane level.



He is well aware of that - but having 4900lbs more SL static thrust each the F-110-400 should be more powerful throughout the entire dynamic thrust range despite the added weight. This is not totally certain for every altitude and speed - however without the thrust curves for each engine we only have the SL static values to go on generally.
The other problem with the TF30s was the inevitable compressor stall if the throttles were not handled with care. be interesting to see if the F-110 had better SFC figures as well.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 21:17
by captain_dalan
basher54321 wrote:
He is well aware of that - but having 4900lbs more SL static thrust each the F-110-400 should be more powerful throughout the entire dynamic thrust range despite the added weight. This is not totally certain for every altitude and speed - however without the thrust curves for each engine we only have the SL static values to go on generally.
The other problem with the TF30s was the inevitable compressor stall if the throttles were not handled with care. be interesting to see if the F-110 had better SFC figures as well.


Oh i agree with that completely. Unfortunately i have never seen the thrust curves myself. I have only heard/read of anecdotal data, that place the the specific excess thrust anywhere from 10 to 30% above the TF30's, depending on the mach/altitude. There are even sources that claim the F110's having a worse performance at high mach-altitude, but that might be because of inlet ramp scheduling.

The compressor stalls were an issue for sure. Too much sideslip angle, rapid throttle transitions at high AoA or low speeds, sudden coming out of burner at high altitude..... all this stuff could cause the engine/s to stall. I once had a chat with a guy who supposedly was a Tomcat jock, and he said the best way to avoid them during ACM was to lock the throttles in full military power (generally above 90%), and leave them there.... alternatively fight in afterburner, especially at higher alpha maneuvers. The one thing the TF30's did have over the F110's though, was an easier air restart. And with the high stall margin, that came out to be a useful feature i guess :(

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2015, 13:06
by mixelflick
Interesting thread...

IMO the F-15E wins here, but only because of it's ability to carry AMRAAM. Had they given the F-14 the same capability, it'd be a LOT closer. If we accept the premise F-15E is carrying FAST packs/CFT's, it becomes even more intriguing, because they increase drag.

2 sets of eyes in a furball would have also helped the Tomcat. Dunno, these two were so evenly matched it's a tough call...

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2015, 14:10
by basher54321
captain_dalan wrote:”the Su-27 when flying overland air superiority”
combat load air-air = 6 R73+4 R27, 8 × Р-27, 8 × Р-77+ 4 × Р-73, 6 × Р-73
combat load fuel: max 9 400(20,724 lb) / main 5 240kg(11,500lb)




Was this data taken from the export Flanker B (Su-27SK) manual?

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2015, 14:14
by basher54321
mixelflick wrote:Interesting thread...

If we accept the premise F-15E is carrying FAST packs/CFT's, it becomes even more intriguing, because they increase drag.




One of the reasons for giving it ~12000 lbs more static max thrust over the F-15C I suspect.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2015, 08:55
by captain_dalan
basher54321 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Interesting thread...

If we accept the premise F-15E is carrying FAST packs/CFT's, it becomes even more intriguing, because they increase drag.




One of the reasons for giving it ~12000 lbs more static max thrust over the F-15C I suspect.


I can't recall for sure right now, but once i did take a glimpse at the E-M charts of the strike bird, and i think even with the added thrust, its turning rates were somewhat lower then the C Eagle's. But, the E might have been heavier because of the extra fuel as well.... i just don remember the weight values.

basher54321 wrote:
captain_dalan wrote:”the Su-27 when flying overland air superiority”
combat load air-air = 6 R73+4 R27, 8 × Р-27, 8 × Р-77+ 4 × Р-73, 6 × Р-73
combat load fuel: max 9 400(20,724 lb) / main 5 240kg(11,500lb)




Was this data taken from the export Flanker B (Su-27SK) manual?


I don't know about his loads (6+4, 8+4), but the data in my chart (for the 2+2) is for the SK. I don't have the manual in front of me right now (at the office ATM), but if memory serves you are correct.

mixelflick wrote:
2 sets of eyes in a furball would have also helped the Tomcat. Dunno, these two were so evenly matched it's a tough call...


I agree with that too. It may have been one of the reasons why Israelis fly two seater F-15's. I know i would want a second pair of eyes if i got in close to someone in a turning fight.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2015, 21:58
by mixelflick
There must be some stories of F-14D's going up against F-15C's, when both were operational?

I was privileged to witness Dale? Snodgrass perform an absolutely freakish low level demo, at a Pratt and Whitney airshow long ago in East Hartford, CT. Was misting rain that day with a LOW ceiling. He tore the sky up with that 'cat, and the TF-30's were glowing more often than not during the display.. :)

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2015, 22:43
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Snort could make a 'Cat dance like no one else... and that is part of the problem. It was not an easy plane to master but the fruits of such labor were awe-inspiring.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2015, 09:15
by captain_dalan
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Snort could make a 'Cat dance like no one else... and that is part of the problem. It was not an easy plane to master but the fruits of such labor were awe-inspiring.


There was video on youtube of an interview with Snort, where he was doing a doing a tour of the new F-14B and he described the F-14 as the most difficult to fly of the legacy fighters (probably because of the avionics and flight controls). As you said it though, those who mastered it, could really make it shine. Just like with the other temperamental birds out there :)

mixelflick wrote:There must be some stories of F-14D's going up against F-15C's, when both were operational?


I think the D's came too late in the operational history for the plane to shine in the air superiority mission. They seam to have done a great job in the deep strike and penetration missions though. However, there are talks of the F-14B sweeping everyone off their feet when it first came around in the late 80's.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2015, 08:38
by tomcooper
neurotech wrote:
rotosequence wrote:
tme908 wrote:In the war of Iran and Iraq some of suudi arabistan`s f15s fought with Iranian f14 tomcats and the tomcat them all. I think this will prove that the tomcats are better than f15s in dogfights but we have to know that the pilots are very important too. :)


I've never seen or heard of an account of F15s engaging F-14s during the Iran-Iraq war before. Do you have a source you can point us to?

As I understood, the RoE prohibited US fighter aircraft from engaging and pilots were instructed not to engage Iranian fighters, either during the Iran-Iraq war or during the Gulf War in '91, or during the aftermath (Northern Watch).
...while I admit some uncertainity in regards of description 'suudi arabistan' (what should that be, please?), there was a number of Iranian-Saudi and then US-Iranian engagements during Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988. Though none between F-14s and F-15s.

The few clashes between Iranians and Saudis were all of 'F-4E vs F-15C' nature. In one, two Eagles intercepted a pair of Phantoms on a bombing mission approaching the Saudi coast, dispatched one (killing the crew) while damaging the other. Shortly later, a pair of F-4Es mixed it with a pair of F-15s and Iranians tracked one of Eagles long enough to fire an AIM-9J at it: the missile missed the F-15 that beat a hasty retreat...

In early August 1987, a single F-4E attacked a P-3C Orion of the USN underway in support of one of convoys bound for Kuwait. The Iranian got a lock-on and fired a Sparrow. To the luck of the Orion's crew, there were two F-14As of VF-21 nearby: Tomcat No. 2 (then a junior pilot) snap-shoot two AIM-7s in return. One failed to guide, while the other missed the - meanwhile - hard manoeuvring F-4E. Of course, Iranian's missile missed too, because he had to break....

In April 1988, there was something like a stand-off between USN's F-14s and IRIAF F-4Es during the Op Praying Mantis, but knowing about superiority of the Tomcat, Iranians decided not to approach.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2015, 08:54
by oldiaf
I think the logical comparison should be between the F-14 and the F-15A-D not E in AA fighting capability

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2016, 23:14
by f-16adf
The F-14 fights better at lower speeds (because the wings are at 20 degrees ((high aspect ratio))), the F-15 fights better at higher speeds. You can find their turn rate/radius charts online, and if you compare the two: The Tomcat generally turns best at the 310-325KIAS range, while the Eagle turns best from 385KIAS and up.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2017, 18:12
by mixelflick
One point lightly touched upon in this thread: Big, heavy fighters have positives and negatives.

Imagine a fully fueled F-14D with 2 Phoenix, 3 sparrow and 2 sidewinders (no EFT's tho). Let's say he gets a radar lock at 60 miles on a bogey, but can't positively ID him as a bandit through IFF. Now the bogey's inside of 20 miles and the F-14 still can't ID him. Now he's 9 miles out and it's called as an SU-27. The Cat's pilot still wants a VID to prevent fratricide and the Flanker pilot is of the same thinking. Finally, at the merge they positively ID each other and fight's on..

The F-14 is now lugging around thousands and thousands of pounds of jet fuel, along with 2,000 more lbs of Phoenix missiles. The Flanker is in an even worse position carrying more internal fuel, and his long range missiles aren't exactly lithe either.

Is this why USN Tomcats weren't carrying Phoenix missiles when they shot down Libyan SU-22's and Mig-23's? Or am I assuming that and they really were carrying them?

For the record: I'd take the F-15 in and F-14/15 duel. Although I'd secretly be rooting for the F-14 (B or D)

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2017, 19:04
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote: Let's say he gets a radar lock at 60 miles on a bogey, but can't positively ID him as a bandit through IFF. Now the bogey's inside of 20 miles and the F-14 still can't ID him.


I think 'Ol Tom would win the VID war at BVR

" Northrop's AAX-1, also designated TCS (TV Camera Set). The AAX-1 helped pilots visually identify and track aircraft, up to a range of 60 miles (97 km) for large aircraft. The radar and the AAX-1 were linked, allowing the one detector to follow the direction of the other. A dual infrared/optical detection system was adopted on the later F-14D."

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2017, 19:10
by basher54321
mixelflick wrote:Is this why USN Tomcats weren't carrying Phoenix missiles when they shot down Libyan SU-22's and Mig-23's? Or am I assuming that and they really were carrying them?



From what I have read this was determined at squadron level and was weight related. Some squadrons expected to merge so took AIM-7s over AIM-54 and yes the F-14s in the later engagement did only have AIM-7s (and one had TCS).

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 17:46
by mixelflick
basher54321 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Is this why USN Tomcats weren't carrying Phoenix missiles when they shot down Libyan SU-22's and Mig-23's? Or am I assuming that and they really were carrying them?



From what I have read this was determined at squadron level and was weight related. Some squadrons expected to merge so took AIM-7s over AIM-54 and yes the F-14s in the later engagement did only have AIM-7s (and one had TCS).


Forgive me on this but TCS... television camera system?

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 20:24
by basher54321
Northrop AN/AXX-1 Television Camera System (TCS)

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2017, 22:21
by f-16adf
According to the book: "Wings of Fury" pg. 26, Sondgrass and his wingman Mark Wheeler were on station (near bingo) the very same day Music and Kleeman registered their Su-22 kills. Dale's F-14A was armed with 2 Phoenix, 2 Aim-7, 2 Aim-9. I do not know the load out for Music's or Kleeman's jets.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2017, 15:41
by mixelflick
f-16adf wrote:According to the book: "Wings of Fury" pg. 26, Sondgrass and his wingman Mark Wheeler were on station (near bingo) the very same day Music and Kleeman registered their Su-22 kills. Dale's F-14A was armed with 2 Phoenix, 2 Aim-7, 2 Aim-9. I do not know the load out for Music's or Kleeman's jets.


Wow. Many thanks..

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 00:42
by gbigly
A few things. The f-14D was the heaviest tomcat but did after recieving updated F-110 engines @ 30,200lbs each have the highest thrust to weight ratio out of all three tomcat versions. The f-14D was slightly less aerodynamic in a dogfight but the thrust to weight probably still gave it somewhat comparable dogfight performance to the F-14B - the fastest and lightest tomcat AFAIK.

The f-14 had about 46-50 psf of wing loading. This, despite it being 50% heavier than the f-15 eagle empty, gave it superior turning performance over the eagle. Even with 68 degrees (fully swept back) wings, the wing loading was about equal with the eagle, at up to 85. Eagle is about 80. That's amazing considering the wingspan of a fully swept back winged tomcat is over 5 feet less than the f-15 eagle. Impressive. So the extra few pounds per square foot isn't going to hurt the tomcat. It's a navy plane. Nonetheless you don't dogfight like that. You dogfight around 40-45 degrees in the tomcat.

The charts you have all posted on here do not show the maximum G-limits of the tomcat. Remember the f-14 is a navy plane it's a much stronger plane and has about the same exact percentage of titanium by weight. But it also has a much larger frame which is interesting. There was a fixed wing version of the F-14 tomcat proposed, but it was 5,000 heavier than the swing winged version they had in mind at the time. This is because 20 degrees of sweep equals slower takeoff and landing. So the extra weight of the tomcat isn't because it's big and bulky and made to carry tons of useless "navy crap", it's because it has to be heavier to be stronger to withstand forces of impact while taking off and landing on a carrier. This by default makes it much more durable and able to take poundings of wind and g-loads better than the f-15 eagle. There is a reason they still fly the thing in Iran despite all being purchased in the late 70s.

Back to the G-s though, my favorite topic. The f-14 has a superior turning ability because of it's lower wing loading and VG wings. Somehow you people think that having well over 700 sq ft of wing area is going to make it turn worse! Nope. And the charts may show slower turn rates for the f-14, but then it still has considerably less thrust to weight ratio than the eagle. Most of the data is for the F-14A, which can't turn very well due to having very poor thrust. The later versions overcame those bottlenecks, yet, the tomcat never achieved anything over than .88 to 1 thrust to weight ratio. This is kind of an unfair comparison because we're weighing the plane down a lot with more fuel as well. But in theory, the tomcat should be able to perform tighter turns and sustain them better than the eagle. That obviously means turn rates are faster for the tomcat by design, provided you have close to 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.

The f-14 nacelle doesn't create bad drag for the cat, as a matter of fact it helps in turning, but also acceleration as it streamlines the wind from under the plane, whereas the tight-proximity engines of the f-15 eagle will be bouncing the f-15 around like an empty tin can. The f-15 is very bumpy to ride and the pilots will admit to that much. The tomcat rides like a cadillac, even at 68 degrees of wing sweep. And remember, despite having 50% heavier weight, when at 68 degrees of sweep, the wing loading is STILL at the very least comparable to that of the eagle - this parred with a stronger frame and wing box means the tomcat can still handle those higher gs.

My money is the proposed super tomcat 21, which would have had a higher than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio, and welded, large and solid glove vanes, a better antenna for it's APG-71 to realize the full potential of that radar, potential thrust vectoring, faster top speeds and more fuel. All of this amazing stuff, yet still, except for the welded glove vanes, are externally exactly the same thing as an f-14A. Of course newer engines, but engines aren't a plane :) Also, the Super Tomcat 21 would have taken many existing F-14As and simply put the st-21 upgrades in them. And then most of the ST-21s probably would have been internally (and mostly externally) f-14As from the 80s flying around STILL blowing sh*t up.

To be honest, i never believed that this many people could hate on the tomcat. It's a better plane and that's why it was axed. I don't hate the eagle, it's a great plane, and I would prefer the eagle for cheapness and land based operations. But for a superior dogfighter and strike/interceptor that takes off from a carrier? I'd choose the tomcat, even over the F-15N navy proposal.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 02:15
by Scorpion1alpha
A few things. The f-14D was the heaviest tomcat but did after recieving updated F-110 engines @ 30,200lbs each have the highest thrust to weight ratio out of all three tomcat versions. The f-14D was slightly less aerodynamic in a dogfight but the thrust to weight probably still gave it somewhat comparable dogfight performance to the F-14B - the fastest and lightest tomcat AFAIK.

The f-14 had about 46-50 psf of wing loading. This, despite it being 50% heavier than the f-15 eagle empty, gave it superior turning performance over the eagle. Even with 68 degrees (fully swept back) wings, the wing loading was about equal with the eagle, at up to 85. Eagle is about 80. That's amazing considering the wingspan of a fully swept back winged tomcat is over 5 feet less than the f-15 eagle. Impressive. So the extra few pounds per square foot isn't going to hurt the tomcat. It's a navy plane. Nonetheless you don't dogfight like that. You dogfight around 40-45 degrees in the tomcat.

The charts you have all posted on here do not show the maximum G-limits of the tomcat. Remember the f-14 is a navy plane it's a much stronger plane and has about the same exact percentage of titanium by weight. But it also has a much larger frame which is interesting. There was a fixed wing version of the F-14 tomcat proposed, but it was 5,000 heavier than the swing winged version they had in mind at the time. This is because 20 degrees of sweep equals slower takeoff and landing. So the extra weight of the tomcat isn't because it's big and bulky and made to carry tons of useless "navy crap", it's because it has to be heavier to be stronger to withstand forces of impact while taking off and landing on a carrier. This by default makes it much more durable and able to take poundings of wind and g-loads better than the f-15 eagle. There is a reason they still fly the thing in Iran despite all being purchased in the late 70s.

Back to the G-s though, my favorite topic. The f-14 has a superior turning ability because of it's lower wing loading and VG wings. Somehow you people think that having well over 700 sq ft of wing area is going to make it turn worse! Nope. And the charts may show slower turn rates for the f-14, but then it still has considerably less thrust to weight ratio than the eagle. Most of the data is for the F-14A, which can't turn very well due to having very poor thrust. The later versions overcame those bottlenecks, yet, the tomcat never achieved anything over than .88 to 1 thrust to weight ratio. This is kind of an unfair comparison because we're weighing the plane down a lot with more fuel as well. But in theory, the tomcat should be able to perform tighter turns and sustain them better than the eagle. That obviously means turn rates are faster for the tomcat by design, provided you have close to 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.

The f-14 nacelle doesn't create bad drag for the cat, as a matter of fact it helps in turning, but also acceleration as it streamlines the wind from under the plane, whereas the tight-proximity engines of the f-15 eagle will be bouncing the f-15 around like an empty tin can. The f-15 is very bumpy to ride and the pilots will admit to that much. The tomcat rides like a cadillac, even at 68 degrees of wing sweep. And remember, despite having 50% heavier weight, when at 68 degrees of sweep, the wing loading is STILL at the very least comparable to that of the eagle - this parred with a stronger frame and wing box means the tomcat can still handle those higher gs.

My money is the proposed super tomcat 21, which would have had a higher than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio, and welded, large and solid glove vanes, a better antenna for it's APG-71 to realize the full potential of that radar, potential thrust vectoring, faster top speeds and more fuel. All of this amazing stuff, yet still, except for the welded glove vanes, are externally exactly the same thing as an f-14A. Of course newer engines, but engines aren't a plane :) Also, the Super Tomcat 21 would have taken many existing F-14As and simply put the st-21 upgrades in them. And then most of the ST-21s probably would have been internally (and mostly externally) f-14As from the 80s flying around STILL blowing sh*t up.

To be honest, i never believed that this many people could hate on the tomcat. It's a better plane and that's why it was axed. I don't hate the eagle, it's a great plane, and I would prefer the eagle for cheapness and land based operations. But for a superior dogfighter and strike/interceptor that takes off from a carrier? I'd choose the tomcat, even over the F-15N navy proposal.


Just WOW...

Here's a patch for your collection:

Image

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 02:43
by gbigly
Just WOW...

Here's a patch for your collection:

Image


here's a picture to go with that patch! lol...

Is the tomkitty's dizziness from taking this picture of an f-15 eagle in the pipper of a tomcat? :devil:

Perhaps it's cheney's negligence!

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 03:03
by gbigly
Wow, another f-14 hater deletes my post. You can thank Joe Hoser for the picture btw. He was in a tomcat when he took it :)

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 03:09
by XanderCrews
gbigly wrote:Wow, another f-14 hater deletes my post. You can thank Joe Hoser for the picture btw. He was in a tomcat when he took it :)



I'm a Tomcat fan. And I think you are over the top. It's not "haters" it's you.

It's a better plane and that's why it was axed.


Logic not even once

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 12:11
by basher54321
gbigly wrote:A few things.



Always good to see enthusiastic aviation posters come along however most of your post demonstrates a lack of understanding in quite a few things. Maybe time to reevaluate before declaring "everyone" is this or that and you know best - and then getting upset when you are pulled up.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 15:37
by mixelflick
"Somehow you people think that having well over 700 sq ft of wing area is going to make it turn worse!"

More "you people" please... :roll:

I loved the F-15 growing up but came to appreciate the F-14 after seeing Snodgrass perform a low level demo at Pratt's plant in East Hartford, CT. Obviously, with the TF-30's but it was the single most awe inspiring/aggressive display I've ever witnessed. I've seen 'em all (F-15, 16, 18, F-22, Blue Angels, Thunderbirds etc). and that F-14 demo rocked. It was a real low ceiling, bad overcast but man he sucked every drop of vapor out of the air, and it was jaw dropping.

Never saw an F-14D fly a demo but did get up close and personal with a static display. Those engines really actualized its potential, and I can only imagine the smile on the pilots transitioning from the F-14A to F-14B's/D's. One funny anecdote.. I was talking to the GIB (guy in back, LOL) about the Phoenix. Was rattling off all its attributes like max range, ability to engage multiple targets, fantastic ECCM in the AIM-54C etc.

He cracked a smile and said, "The joke in the fleet is that the Phoenix is an air to ground missile..." :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 15:52
by mixelflick
"To be honest, i never believed that this many people could hate on the tomcat. It's a better plane and that's why it was axed..."

He might have something here. After all, F-22 production was cut short... :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 21:54
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:"Somehow you people think that having well over 700 sq ft of wing area is going to make it turn worse!"

More "you people" please... :roll:

I loved the F-15 growing up but came to appreciate the F-14 after seeing Snodgrass perform a low level demo at Pratt's plant in East Hartford, CT. Obviously, with the TF-30's but it was the single most awe inspiring/aggressive display I've ever witnessed. I've seen 'em all (F-15, 16, 18, F-22, Blue Angels, Thunderbirds etc). and that F-14 demo rocked. It was a real low ceiling, bad overcast but man he sucked every drop of vapor out of the air, and it was jaw dropping.

Never saw an F-14D fly a demo but did get up close and personal with a static display. Those engines really actualized its potential, and I can only imagine the smile on the pilots transitioning from the F-14A to F-14B's/D's. One funny anecdote.. I was talking to the GIB (guy in back, LOL) about the Phoenix. Was rattling off all its attributes like max range, ability to engage multiple targets, fantastic ECCM in the AIM-54C etc.

He cracked a smile and said, "The joke in the fleet is that the Phoenix is an air to ground missile..." :mrgreen:


LOL

Or torpedo depending on where it's "launched"

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 22:10
by f-16adf
There is an article from FlightGlobal about the F-14A v F-14B testing back in the late 80's with VX-4. The results (with regards to the horizontal) may just surprise you-

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 22:45
by SpudmanWP
Imagine what a Phoenix could do with the AIM-120D's avionics (ECCM, active seeker, GPS INS, 2-way datalink) when flying a very high lofted profile thanks to it's monstrous motor. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 22:52
by popcorn
If accounts of the AIM-120Ds range fired on a lofted trajectory are accurate it would be splitting hairs.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 22:53
by SpudmanWP
The role of the AIM-54 may have been supplanted thanks to SM-6 & NIFC-CA.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 23:00
by popcorn
Yeah, the primary shield for the CSG is now AEGIS ("Shield" in Greek I'm told). Still, I'd think the outermost layer of the onion should be a BARCAP of F35Cs preferably carrying a load of SACM derivatives to thin out the herd.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 23:07
by SpudmanWP
IIHO SACM is too short ranged to be the outer layer..

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 23:25
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:IIHO SACM is too short ranged to be the outer layer..

Maybe,,, but I'm thinking if your SA picture is good enough to allow you to position the sensor/shooter appropriately, something with the claimed range of Barracuda would catch a lot of them. Maybe mix in a few AMRAAMs as well.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2017, 23:37
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote: Maybe mix in a few AMRAAMs as well.


Well.. If SACM is in the picture then they would also likely have 2x AMRAAM per internal A2G station.. So they could have:

4xSACM & 4xAMRAAM

or

8xSACM & 2xAMRAAM.. Do I give up 4xSACM to get 2xAMRAAMs ????

Decisions... Decisions :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2017, 00:23
by popcorn
Also nothing to preclude hanging a bunch under the wings.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2017, 16:19
by mixelflick
f-16adf wrote:There is an article from FlightGlobal about the F-14A v F-14B testing back in the late 80's with VX-4. The results (with regards to the horizontal) may just surprise you-


I'm going to look now, but do you have a link? Also, don't leave me hanging please, especially if I can't find it :). I had heard the TF-30 was faster overall, perhaps that's what you're referencing?

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2017, 23:26
by f-16adf
Mixelflick, it is from Flightglobal 23 April, 2013. Here it is:

Often in the world of military aviation we get wrapped up in technology. But while a superior weapon can make the difference between victory and defeat in the hands of a skilled operator, that weapon can be useless in the hands of a novice. Here is one example where victory in the air comes down to pilot skill.

Gerry Gallop, senior vice president and chief operating officer of Tactical Air Support Inc., who previously served as an instructor at the US Navy's elite TOPGUN School, flew both the F-14A Tomcat powered by the Pratt & Whitney TF30 and much more powerful F-14B powered by the General Electric F110.

When the F-14B (F-14A+ at the time) was first introduced to the fleet, Gallop was assigned to the VX-4 operational test and evaluation squadron based at NAS Point Mugu, California. "The F110 [version of the Tomcat], when we first got it, my very first flight in the airplane, it was the first time I had taken an airplane out and just run the power up, accelerated to the red line of the airplane, and had to throttle back," he says. "We only had the stub pylons on, the thing was clean, it was brand new with these big motors and we didn't have a whole lot we could do with it because we had some real restrictions on it."

But one thing that VX-4 did do at the time was to essentially drag race their F-14A+ (aka F-14B) against a TF30 powered F-14A and a new McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet at 4000ft AGL, Gallop says. "It was awesome," he says. "The Hornet is pretty quick, especially because we were flying Lot 11s (which were light and had a high thrust to weight ratio-Gallop notes)...The Hornet hung pretty well until we hit around 0.9 and then that show was over. The wings were back on the F-14 and we punched through the number and just ran it out to about 780 [knots] and it was still accelerating."

Later, Gallop says he had an opportunity to take part in an interesting exercise when he was at TOPGUN flying F-14As and Bs. "I was flying at TOPGUN and we had the F-14As there at the time, and for one short period of time, we got a B-model," he says. "So I went out with another F-14 guy for a one-versus-one. We took turns being the offensive or defensive player and I think I was in the A."

"So we setup with the B offensive on the first one, and not unexpectedly, the offensive aircraft did well-lots of power," Gallop says. "So I thought 'Oh, well, it's a huge difference the GE engines are pretty great. Then we swapped roles and we found that the end result was fairly similar except the TF30 airplane did better-he started as offensive and stayed there."

The lesson that Gallop says that he took away was: "Really, all it comes down to is technique because the F-14, especially with that 64ft wingspan-it's a very efficient wing-but it doesn't matter how much thrust you have, you can still generate a lot more drag if you're out there, depending on where you're in the envelope, especially as the defensive guy you don't have a whole lot of opportunity to unload the airplane and take advantage of the energy addition rate."

There are huge advantages to having lots of extra thrust-such as improved time-to-climb, intercept ratios, and greater payloads, and just better overall aircraft performance, Gallop says, but "thrust is a tool and needs to be applied intelligently to take full advantage of it."

"No matter what you do, it's going to be how the airplane is flown," Gallop says. "Whoever is getting the maximum performance out of their machine is going to be ultimately successful."

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2017, 23:34
by f-16adf
Here are some F-14A and F-14B charts that are very interesting:

Image

Image

Image

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaemb ... iginal.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2017, 23:37
by f-16adf
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2017, 23:51
by f-16adf
As you can see the B model has a little bit better STR, while the lighter A model has a very small ITR and turn radius (not by much) advantage. What the F110 did is it reduced bleed rates from the prior A model's TF30 in the horizontal. I have spoken to 2 Tomcat aviators who flew both A and D Tomcats. And they said that in the horizontal, the improvement is not by a significant margin (and the data from the turn charts agree with them). However, they both concurred that in the VERTICAL is where the big GE motors gave a vast improvement.

Hope that helps.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2017, 23:58
by f-16adf
For some odd reason I'm unable to post the 25K B chart?

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 00:12
by f-16adf
Here is the charts for the F-14A:

Image



Also note at the bottom of F-14B (D) charts: maneuver devices on AUTO and Not Operating.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 00:15
by f-16adf
Last post should say: Here are the F-14A charts. Sorry for the error-

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 00:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I'm not seeing any A charts either.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 02:39
by f-16adf
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 03:16
by sprstdlyscottsmn
These charts make it look like the A+/B/D had better midrange thrust but the top end looks better on the A model. I can certainly chalk up the STR and Blead rate advantages that seem to go to the A to, as you noted, the D listed has a 'hard wing' (no LES or TEF) meaning that any lift it generates is done in a less efficient manner than the A model listed wing. By the looks of it these planes have the same weapons and fuel load.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 07:15
by johnwill
Here's a guess why the F-14A has better top end performance. The GE-110 has about 11% higher airflow requirement than the TF-30, so maybe the F-14 inlet (designed for TF-30) doesn't provide enough air for the GE-110 to develop max thrust at the top end.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 09:48
by f-16adf
I have posted 4 charts with Maneuver devices OFF for the B model, 5-25K. And I have posted 2 charts for the B with Maneuver devices ON, 5K and 10K. I have tried to post 15K and 25K but am unable. However, you can pretty much interpolate and the margin is not significant. All the F-14A charts that are posted have them ON.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 15:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
johnwill wrote:Here's a guess why the F-14A has better top end performance. The GE-110 has about 11% higher airflow requirement than the TF-30, so maybe the F-14 inlet (designed for TF-30) doesn't provide enough air for the GE-110 to develop max thrust at the top end.

I would think that for the same fixed inlet area you would need a higher top speed in order to reach said higher airflow required. As I understand it though the inlets were fixed on the D models for maintenance reasons. That could explain a loss of top end.

That said, there is a NATOPS document that shows a top speed with the A of 1,170kt @ 40,000 clean (51,166lb) and that drops to 975kt @ 45,000 with six Phoenix missiles (62,240) but top speed is unaffected by four Sparrows and four Sidewinders. This speed is a placard limit.

The same document for the D model shows a clean top speed of 1,196kt @ 35,000 (53,952lb) and it drops to 1,052kt @ 35,000 with all loadings, from four Sidewinders and four Sparrows to four Phoenixes and two each of the other missiles, with a note of "Current Limit, Maximum Allowable Airspeed"

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs ... hp?id=3365

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs ... hp?id=3367

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 16:15
by sprstdlyscottsmn
f-16adf wrote:I have posted 4 charts with Maneuver devices OFF for the B model, 5-25K. And I have posted 2 charts for the B with Maneuver devices ON, 5K and 10K. I have tried to post 15K and 25K but am unable. However, you can pretty much interpolate and the margin is not significant. All the F-14A charts that are posted have them ON.


Oh I see that now, my apologies. Okay so looking at the two 10kft B model charts I see something interesting. Above 0.7M the two are identical. I theorize that the maneuver devices don't work unless the wing sweep is forward maybe? Anyway, under 0.7M there is a sharp upward spike in all the Ps curves. It raises max STR from 13dps at 0.7M to 14dps at 0.6M and it raises max ITR from 19dps just under 0.6M to 20dps a bit over 0.55M. Also, the -800fps line raises 1 dps (to 18.5)and the -400fps line raises almost 2dps (to 17). So in this sense, no the differences are not THAT great. So it still helps with energy loss a little. By comparison the F-14A has these key points of 13.5 STR 0.6M, 19 ITR 0.5M, -800 @ 18, and -400 @ 16.5.

So, having a great long, high AR, wing means squat when your CL gets to over 2 (as it can in the Tomcat). Drag will win. At the bottom you can see the acceleration/climbing advantage given though.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 18:32
by mixelflick
I appreciate the article! Can't make heads or tails out of the charts but your commentary helps.

I take it the F-110 powered bird's big advantages were fuel economy/time on station, carefree acceleration (flying plane, not the engine) and playing in the vertical. I'm sure the Iranian's would love some F-110's, although I heard they tried retrofitting Flanker engines too. Who knows. What is all but certain is getting spare parts for their TF-30's must be all but impossible.

Bet they're making those themselves now. Will be curious to see when they retire them. They've been in service now for what, almost 40 years!?

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 20:42
by f-16adf
There is a book written by Donald Auten titled: ROGER BALL!: THE ODYSSEY OF JOHN MONROE "HAWK" SMITH NAVY FIGHTER PILOT.

Captain Smith flew Navy Phantoms in the 1960's; and he was one of the initial VX-4 F-14 aviators back in the early 1970's. Smith was also on the first Tomcat cruise with VF-1/2 in early 1975. As the commanding officer of NFWS, he went on to evaluate the YF-17 Cobra (later to become F/A-18 Hornet) in 1977. Smith also played a part in pre AIMVAL/ACEVAL testing.


The book is on Amazon, and it's a superlative read.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 23:00
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I recognize Hawk's name from 'Tomcat: Bye, bye, baby'.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2017, 03:02
by gbigly
f-16adf wrote: Then we swapped roles and we found that the end result was fairly similar except the TF30 airplane did better-he started as offensive and stayed there."

The lesson that Gallop says that he took away was: "Really, all it comes down to is technique because the F-14, especially with that 64ft wingspan-it's a very efficient wing-but it doesn't matter how much thrust you have, you can still generate a lot more drag if you're out there, depending on where you're in the envelope, especially as the defensive guy you don't have a whole lot of opportunity to unload the airplane and take advantage of the energy addition rate."

There are huge advantages to having lots of extra thrust-such as improved time-to-climb, intercept ratios, and greater payloads, and just better overall aircraft performance, Gallop says, but "thrust is a tool and needs to be applied intelligently to take full advantage of it."

"No matter what you do, it's going to be how the airplane is flown," Gallop says. "Whoever is getting the maximum performance out of their machine is going to be ultimately successful."


To be honest i think his statement is mostly propaganda. The wings can move ya know? The tomcat can turn the fastest in theory with enough engine power, which the f-110s on the D certainly gave it, but we of course are more concerned about it's sustained capability. Also, it is well known that over mach 2 even the f-14A can sustain 7.5gs with about 80+ p.s.f of wing loading at 68 degrees of wing sweep. To say that in a dogfight, most of which are below mach 1.. that an f-14b wouldn't whip the sh*t out of the A is just pure denial.

At around 40-50 degrees of WING SWEEP is where your dogfight capability is, and best case scenario for highest g loads. They routinely turned these birds at 9gs all the time. Saying they can't sustain it is just a down right lie. The f-14A, mind you, was only sold to the Shah of Iran in the 70s because that model turned 8.5gs SUSTAINED and ACCELERATED which means it had enough thrust to weight ratio to go even higher, perhaps sustaining 9gs if allowed to. Of course they did in fact burn the fuel down to 4000 pounds maybe lower. But back then, the f-15A eagle had a g-load limit of 7 - 7.5gs anyways. The tomcat outperformed it. It's just a shame it had shitty engines.

About speed, the f-14A was tested clean by NASA and it went OVER mach 2.4, and was still accelerating. The plane's design is capable of well over mach 2.5, probably in the mach 2.6+ range because of it's low drag and good aerodynamics. The top speed of the f-14b and D models were also about mach 2.4 as rated. There is no reason to think it couldn't get higher. From what I gather, the f-110 actually used LESS air coming in most of the time, that means more fuel efficiency. More oxygen coming in = more fuel being burned. They were also able to get the tomcat off of the carrier without using afterburner.

I don't get why these armchair aviationists have to constantly bash this dead plane. You got what you wanted. You killed the best air superiority fighter in the world. Problem is you can't admit what you did was wrong.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2017, 03:55
by garrya
@gbigly : why do you post the same stuff here : viewtopic.php?f=33&t=4152&p=363465#p363465

gbigly wrote:
To be honest i think his statement is mostly propaganda. The wings can move ya know? The tomcat can turn the fastest in theory with enough engine power

If we talking about maximum ITR then it is purely depending on ability of aircraft to generate lift so engine thrust is irrelevance
If we talking about STR then drag matter too, so just because a wing can generate more lift doesn't necessary lead to better STR


gbigly wrote: which the f-110s on the D certainly gave it, but we of course are more concerned about it's sustained capability. Also, it is well known that over mach 2 even the f-14A can sustain 7.5gs with about 80+ p.s.f of wing loading at 68 degrees of wing sweep.

Nonsense, no F-14 can sustain 7.5G at Mach 2
Image

gbigly wrote: At around 40-50 degrees of WING SWEEP is where your dogfight capability is, and best case scenario for highest g loads.

Optimum wing sweep would varied with altitude since air density isn't constant

gbigly wrote:They routinely turned these birds at 9gs all the time. Saying they can't sustain it is just a down right lie.

They sometimes over G the F-14, not all the time.An exception shouldn't be treated as the rule.Some F-4 has been over G up to 12G too, but that doesn't mean we should consider them 12 G aircraft. Recommended G limit are there for a reason. Moreover, the amount of G you can turn or sustain is affected by altitude and speed too

gbigly wrote:The f-14A, mind you, was only sold to the Shah of Iran in the 70s because that model turned 8.5gs SUSTAINED and ACCELERATED which means it had enough thrust to weight ratio to go even higher, perhaps sustaining 9gs if allowed to. Of course they did in fact burn the fuel down to 4000 pounds maybe lower. But back then, the f-15A eagle had a g-load limit of 7 - 7.5gs anyways. The tomcat outperformed it. It's just a shame it had shitty engines.

Both F-14 and F-15C have lower structure G limit than F-16. However while F-14 excel at low speed, F-15 and F-16 excel at high speed
Image
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2017, 11:54
by mixelflick
gbigly wrote:
f-16adf wrote: Then we swapped roles and we found that the end result was fairly similar except the TF30 airplane did better-he started as offensive and stayed there."

The lesson that Gallop says that he took away was: "Really, all it comes down to is technique because the F-14, especially with that 64ft wingspan-it's a very efficient wing-but it doesn't matter how much thrust you have, you can still generate a lot more drag if you're out there, depending on where you're in the envelope, especially as the defensive guy you don't have a whole lot of opportunity to unload the airplane and take advantage of the energy addition rate."

There are huge advantages to having lots of extra thrust-such as improved time-to-climb, intercept ratios, and greater payloads, and just better overall aircraft performance, Gallop says, but "thrust is a tool and needs to be applied intelligently to take full advantage of it."

"No matter what you do, it's going to be how the airplane is flown," Gallop says. "Whoever is getting the maximum performance out of their machine is going to be ultimately successful."


To be honest i think his statement is mostly propaganda. The wings can move ya know? The tomcat can turn the fastest in theory with enough engine power, which the f-110s on the D certainly gave it, but we of course are more concerned about it's sustained capability. Also, it is well known that over mach 2 even the f-14A can sustain 7.5gs with about 80+ p.s.f of wing loading at 68 degrees of wing sweep. To say that in a dogfight, most of which are below mach 1.. that an f-14b wouldn't whip the sh*t out of the A is just pure denial.

At around 40-50 degrees of WING SWEEP is where your dogfight capability is, and best case scenario for highest g loads. They routinely turned these birds at 9gs all the time. Saying they can't sustain it is just a down right lie. The f-14A, mind you, was only sold to the Shah of Iran in the 70s because that model turned 8.5gs SUSTAINED and ACCELERATED which means it had enough thrust to weight ratio to go even higher, perhaps sustaining 9gs if allowed to. Of course they did in fact burn the fuel down to 4000 pounds maybe lower. But back then, the f-15A eagle had a g-load limit of 7 - 7.5gs anyways. The tomcat outperformed it. It's just a shame it had shitty engines.

About speed, the f-14A was tested clean by NASA and it went OVER mach 2.4, and was still accelerating. The plane's design is capable of well over mach 2.5, probably in the mach 2.6+ range because of it's low drag and good aerodynamics. The top speed of the f-14b and D models were also about mach 2.4 as rated. There is no reason to think it couldn't get higher. From what I gather, the f-110 actually used LESS air coming in most of the time, that means more fuel efficiency. More oxygen coming in = more fuel being burned. They were also able to get the tomcat off of the carrier without using afterburner.

I don't get why these armchair aviationists have to constantly bash this dead plane. You got what you wanted. You killed the best air superiority fighter in the world. Problem is you can't admit what you did was wrong.


Interesting about the speed. I thought I remember seeing where a cat got up to mach 2.6 in testing. In one of the Iranian Tomcat documentaries, it got up to mach 1.4/1.5 I think, before loosing a phoenix and ultimately bagging a Foxbat.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2017, 14:12
by f-16adf
It is rather laughable that you do not even believe a pilot from VX-4. Will you believe Larry "Music" Muczynski who actually flew the Tomcat in combat back in 1981? Listen to what he says about THE 7G REVERSAL TURN he pulled, it starts at 38:40

[YouTube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=4arJFZbfKAg[/YouTube]


Now since Music was in actual combat, ask yourself if the CAT was 9G sustainable, wouldn't he have wanted to pull a 9G turn vs a 7G sustained turn? After all, wouldn't a 9G turn give him a better rate vs 7G? ANSWER: BECAUSE IT COULD PULL 9G INSTANTANEOUSLY, BUT NOT SUSTAIN IT. Are you even going to doubt a Naval Aviator who shot down a Su-22?

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 02:52
by gbigly
f-16adf wrote:It is rather laughable that you do not even believe a pilot from VX-4. Will you believe Larry "Music" Muczynski who actually flew the Tomcat in combat back in 1981? Listen to what he says about THE 7G REVERSAL TURN he pulled, it starts at 38:40


Gee, I don't know? Paul T. Gillcrist did in fact fly some tomcats, and he's the one who basically wrote the book and spilled the beans on the tomcat's lesser known potential. Of course, he did not fly them in service, but he did test them out from what I gather.

Among other pilots like Hoser and Snodgrass, who are in full awareness of what the tomcat's potential are... I'm not sure what your point of "but dis guy said dis and dat" is. Of course there is such a thing as disagreements, even among 2 tomcat pilots.

Seriously, you don't think the f-22 raptor pilots who went on 60 minutes to complain about problems with hypoxia in the plane disagree with other f-22 pilots who deny or are unaware there's a problem?

I fail to see how pilots are somehow supposed to have the exact same classified-rule breaking godlike knowledge of the plane, just because they are pilots. Some have disagreements, and some are just plain stupid. If a plane has abilities that has not been declassified, and certainly there's always SOMETHING about even the f-15 eagle and f-16 falcons that are classified, well then you can't possibly talk about it can you?

And if you want to talk to REAL tomcat pilots, ask Don Evans and Dennis Ramano who pulled a sustain 8.5gs and ACCELERATED (meaning there was enough thrust for OVER 8.5gs) during the f-15a/f-14a fly off for the Iranian Shah in 1976.

Now since Music was in actual combat, ask yourself if the CAT was 9G sustainable, wouldn't he have wanted to pull a 9G turn vs a 7G sustained turn?


Actual combat against what? There are no recorded navy tomcats ever having gotten into an aerial conflict with anything as capable as the f-14. They were shot at from the ground, but you don't need to turn 9gs to avoid those shots. The only thing they have were SUPPOSED to have gotten into conflict with were the Su-22 and MiG-23 planes over contested libyan airspace. And those planes are low-g attack planes. They are not dogfighters. 7gs would be more than enough to suit the situation. Try again.

After all, wouldn't a 9G turn give him a better rate vs 7G? ANSWER: BECAUSE IT COULD PULL 9G INSTANTANEOUSLY, BUT NOT SUSTAIN IT.


Tell that to dennis romano and don evans who pulled a sustained 8.5gs with shitty tf-30s, mind you it low fuel. You don't turn 9gs and not be able to structurally sustain it. For instance, the mig-31 can turn subsonically 5gs because while it does have a lot of wing area, it's wings are not strengthened for turning, they are strengthened for speed. Turning 7 or 8gs even instantaneously will warp the plane. It can't handle it. Period.

Are you even going to doubt a Naval Aviator who shot down a Su-22?


I doubt that he knows the capabilities of the tomcat, yes. And this is primarily because the true high g limit of the tomcat would not have needed to be realized going up against a bomber plane that can't turn to save it's life in a dogfight. MiG-23 does have a high g-limit, but it can't really pull enough power out of it's engine to turn and sustain it.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 03:39
by garrya
gbigly wrote:And if you want to talk to REAL tomcat pilots, ask Don Evans and Dennis Ramano who pulled a sustain 8.5gs and ACCELERATED (meaning there was enough thrust for OVER 8.5gs) during the f-15a/f-14a fly off for the Iranian Shah in 1976.

You basically just cherry pick your information and assume whoever said F-14 can turn over 8.5G is accurate and a "real" pilot and whoever said it can't are wrong. Admit it, you basically just a fanboy who can't accept the limitation of the F-14.
Btw, as zero one explained in others thread, those F-14A in those fly off has less than 1/8 of their fuel ( or less than 12% ) , you can make excuse that F-14D will have better engine but even F-110 at AB only have 20% better thrust than TF-30. By contrast, a normal F-14 in normal combat mission would have anywhere from 50-60% fuel or 4-5 times the amount the F-14 carried in those fly off.





gbigly wrote:Actual combat against what? There are no recorded navy tomcats ever having gotten into an aerial conflict with anything as capable as the f-14. They were shot at from the ground, but you don't need to turn 9gs to avoid those shots. The only thing they have were SUPPOSED to have gotten into conflict with were the Su-22 and MiG-23 planes over contested libyan airspace. And those planes are low-g attack planes. They are not dogfighters. 7gs would be more than enough to suit the situation. Try again.

So let me rephrase this: according to you, F-14 gone against fighters, bomber that can make 7G turn, instead of trying to turn higher G (aka get faster turn rate) , the pilots decided to limit his aircraft at the exact same G value ?
Btw Mig-21 structure limit is 7G
Image

gbigly wrote:Tell that to dennis romano and don evans who pulled a sustained 8.5gs with shitty tf-30s, mind you it low fuel. You don't turn 9gs and not be able to structurally sustain it.

Moronic claim to say the least.
a) How many G your aircraft able to turn is equal to : the amount of lift it can generate/aircraft mass*9.8 so basically structure problem aside, for the same aircraft , the lighter it get , the more G it will able to make. An F-14 on 12% fuel will be able to make higher G turn than one at 50% fuel. But that say nothing about its real world application.
b) Just because you can turn 9G and it is within the structure limit , does not mean the aircraft will be able to sustain that G value. To make a STR, not only aircraft have to generate enough lift , its engine will have to generate enough thrust to balance the drag generated by the turn. This is especially the problem at high altitude, aircraft can always go faster to generate more lift, but going faster, especially supersonic will cause tremendous drag, so just because you can turn a certain G value doesn't mean you can sustain it. For example F-16 can turn up to 9G at Mach 2, but that doesn't mean it can sustain 9G at Mach 2. Not even close.

gbigly wrote:For instance, the mig-31 can turn subsonically 5gs because while it does have a lot of wing area, it's wings are not strengthened for turning, they are strengthened for speed. Turning 7 or 8gs even instantaneously will warp the plane. It can't handle it. Period.

No, Mig-31 can't turn or sustain very high G because while it got high wing loading, its airfoil are not lift oriented ( airfoil need to be thin and minimal interference to reduce drag) , as a result, it cannot generate enough lift for high G maneuver.
\

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 18:03
by f-16adf
Nonsense, you have not provided POST VX-4 sustained G limits for the F-14.

The Iran demo flight was in 1973 (once again, during the early VX-4 CAT days)...

And it says they (Romano/Evans) executed a 8.5G turn, not a 9G sustained turn that you keep on insisting (pg. 51 "Tomcat, the Grumman F-14 story").

I will admit, that according to the book: Grumman F-14 Tomcat by James Perry Stevenson (circa 1975), pg 64 includes a F-14B chart with a VERY SMALL 8G SUSTAINED CURVE, LOOKS LIKE IT'S FROM ABOUT 5,000 FT AND UNDER. It's not a 9G curve. And remember its F401-PW-400 engines were even more powerful than the later GE F110s.


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.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 18:19
by gbigly
garrya wrote:@gbigly : why do you post the same stuff here : viewtopic.php?f=33&t=4152&p=363465#p363465


Because they're 2 different threads?

You basically just cherry pick your information and assume whoever said F-14 can turn over 8.5G is accurate and a "real" pilot and whoever said it can't are wrong. Admit it, you basically just a fanboy who can't accept the limitation of the F-14


You basically just cherry pick YOUR information and assume whoever said f-14 CAN'T turn over 6.5gs is accurate and a "real" pilot and whoever said f-14 CAN are diehard idiot fanboys. Admit it, you basically just a lockheed martin employee who can't accept the capabilities of the f-14

So let me rephrase this: according to you, F-14 gone against fighters, bomber that can make 7G turn, instead of trying to turn higher G (aka get faster turn rate) , the pilots decided to limit his aircraft at the exact same G value ?
Btw Mig-21 structure limit is 7G


US navy tomcats have never fought mig-21s in a dogfight. It has never happened. I said mig-23, you misread what I said.

If we talking about maximum ITR then it is purely depending on ability of aircraft to generate lift so engine thrust is irrelevance
If we talking about STR then drag matter too, so just because a wing can generate more lift doesn't necessary lead to better STR


The tomcat has more lift. I think about at the same lift to drag ratio with wings swept back to about 47-49 degrees, you still have 71-73 PSF wing loading if I did the math right. Of course i suck at it. I'll get more exact math later. That's on par with the f-15C mind you, and the f-15C doesn't have a heavy a$$ 2-seater cockpit with 100s of pounds of radar equipment in the back seat. But of course, we are talking about the f-15E eagle, which has about 80 psf wing loading vs the F-15C's 73 psf.

Also, the numbers for the tomcat are for the f-14D with around 1,000 extra pounds of sh*t for the IRST and other stuff. Try doing the wing loading math for the f-14B. Remember that already has a lower maximum wing loading (44-48 psf).

Nonsense, no F-14 can sustain 7.5G at Mach 2


Wrong again. here's mike cinemara, former VP of grumman in his presentation of the f-14 tomcat to some senior's get together.

https://youtu.be/SsUCixAeZ0A?t=19m9s

Now if you like you may rewind to the start of the video. It's very informative. Now remember, Mike was vice president of grumman. He can't just say "we can take the tomcat to mach 3 and turn 18gs". No, he has to follow the rules or he could get in BIG and i mean BIG trouble. He must tow the line of what is "official". Nonetheless, he does prove my point. The tomcat can sustain 7.5gs at mach 2.0.

I just don't get how you don't see how these people's words are under the microscope of every government agency any time they speak. You just dno't get how tehse people's lives are on the line if they make just one blip or mistake by blurting out the wrong stuff to the public.


Optimum wing sweep would varied with altitude since air density isn't constant


Except the tomcat has more lift and with the f-110 engines, more thrust than the f-14A models.

They sometimes over G the F-14, not all the time.An exception shouldn't be treated as the rule.Some F-4 has been over G up to 12G too, but that doesn't mean we should consider them 12 G aircraft. Recommended G limit are there for a reason. Moreover, the amount of G you can turn or sustain is affected by altitude and speed too


You don't over-g a plane if it can't handle sustaining it. There is a safety margin of turning, yet you are saying only 6.5 gs is sustainable but 9 or 10gs is perfectly fine for a tomcat instantaneously? Give me a break. It had a lower wing loading than all other planes currently flying as air superiroity defenders right now. And it also had a very very very strong frame. To land on a carrier means you can sustain higher g maneuvers for longer periods of time.

Here's the thing "honey" (i assume you are a girl because you said honey to me before). The lower altitude, the more abuse the plane takes. The f-14A was able to do 8.5gs very low to ground. That's more abuse. Higher up it would have gotten less abuse, but also less wind coming into the intakes which would have made the tf-30s more likely to flame out.

next.

Both F-14 and F-15C have lower structure G limit than F-16. However while F-14 excel at low speed, F-15 and F-16 excel at high speed


Nope, f-14A has less thrust you need to keep your speed up. The tomcat was able to pull 8.5gs+ because it had shitty tf-30s low to the ground for more air but low fuel for better T/W ratio.

The f-14 has the lowest wing loading and has the strongest frame of any of these planes. It therefore has the highest g load capacity as it is in fact, a dogfighter. The f-16 has around a 90 psf wing loading or so depending on model wing loading. that's higher than the f-15E eagle. So you're wrong on that point.

for the same aircraft , the lighter it get , the more G it will able to make. An F-14 on 10% fuel will be able to make higher G turn than one at 50% fuel. But that say nothing about its application.


And the f-14 tomcat still has lower wing loading. A 100% titanium wingbox. And a stronger frame overall for carrier landings. It is a tougher plane and it can therefore take higher g maneuevers.

The thing is, an a-6 intruder doesn't have to be as strong because the abuse it takes on the carrier does not affect it's performance as a bomber. Whereas the tomcat is expected to perform high g maneuevers in combat, you can't have the frame getting deformed and still expect the plane to deliver bullets up someone's a$$. But that level of deformity can be acceptable on an E-2 or A-6. They are different planes with different missions. Frame stress requirements are a little different.

For instance, the f-4 is about 25,000 lbs empty. But it's only the size of a super hornet, about that. And it's tail section goes into a sharp point with only one rudder on top. That's why it's a bit lighter than super hornet. Still a decent navy plane. Surely not as strong, but back then it was expected the frames would not last as long and this is due to the complexity of building lots of titanium into the frames of planes back then. So they had to go without and deal with any damages due to weaker aluminum based frames. It's still ok for a navy plane though.

No, Mig-31 can't turn or sustain very high G because while it got high wing loading, its airfoil are not lift oriented ( airfoil need to be thin and minimal interference to reduce drag) , as a result, it cannot generate enough lift for high G maneuver.


No my dear, it has very very low wing loading. But it is not strong enough to turn tightly. It's wings are paperthin and if you look at the eagle, you'll see a gigantic arm or "glove" if you want to call it a glove, coming off the body and tapering off to a thinner wing. You don't have that on the mig-31. It just comes straight out thin. "Air foil"? Please, you use ailerons and spoilers and or flaps to turn. That's what turns an aircraft. For instance even the mig-21 has been through 8-9gs in combat but it's mostly aluminum frame can't handle it. They get warped despite being designed for relatively high g maneuevers. They're not designed for that though.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 18:46
by f-16adf
Look at the NATOPS chart (F-14B):

Image

Notice that the max G line for (ps=0/STR) is around .8 IMN (if we are to estimate the line out to near 7.5G), and then look at the corresponding turn radius of nearly 4,000ft. At .8 Mach the wings on the Tomcat are 45-50 degrees. So this means at higher sustained G, the turn radius is rather large. It's certainly not small as around .6 IMN.


Now, I will admit the Tomcat (A,B,D) was a very good dog-fighter. And many times it did embarrass the F-15 community. Hoser was one example, as were the DACT victories of VF-1 and VF-14 back in the late 1970's.


However, assuming equal pilots, the F-14B/D and the F-15 probably are near equals. What do we know by the charts? The F-14 can turn tighter at slower speeds, while at higher speeds the Eagle can turn with a better rate.


Yet both of these jets do not equal the performance of the Block 30 F-16C big mouth. The MCID Block 30 has better Ps than the Block 50 (it also has a nearly 1.3 degree per second turning advantage and smaller turn radius over the Block 50 at 10K). The Block 30 is a better performer because it is much lighter than the Block 50. While at .6 Mach the Block 30 has a STR advantage (though small, yet an advantage none-the-less) vs the F-14B/D (generally around .6 will give you the Tomcat's best numbers). And above that figure the Block 30 leaves it in the dust-



I have asked you to provide a demo of any Tomcat equaling or surpassing Solo Turk's F-16C Block 40 time of 15.1 seconds for the entire 360 degree turn.

Here again is Solo Turk, turn begins at :34 second mark:

[YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcBlEU62e8c[/YouTube]

Remember, the big mouth Block 30 turns a little quicker and with a smaller radius (since it's many hundreds of lbs. lighter).

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 19:17
by gbigly
f-16adf wrote:Look at the NATOPS chart (F-14B):

Notice that the max G line for (ps=0/STR) is around .8 IMN (if we are to estimate the line out to near 7.5G), and then look at the corresponding turn radius of nearly 4,000ft. At .8 Mach the wings on the Tomcat are 45-50 degrees. So this means at higher sustained G, the turn radius is rather large. It's certainly not small as around .6 IMN.


WRong. The tomcats wings can stay at 20 degrees until about mach 1.2+. They start going back after going faster than that. Natops imposes peace time limitations on air frames due to the demands of frame lifespan on carrier jets.


Now, I will admit the Tomcat (A,B,D) was a very good dog-fighter. And many times it did embarrass the F-15 community. Hoser was one example, as were the DACT victories of VF-1 and VF-14 back in the late 1970's.


Look here. This is mike Cinemara former Grumman Vice President proving you wrong about the whole "6.5g limit" you people keep talking about.

https://youtu.be/SsUCixAeZ0A?t=19m9s

If the tomcat can pull 7.5gs with high wing loading at mach 2 and the wings @ 68 degrees of sweep, what do you think it's going to do when it's at 47-49? You don't think.

Higher wing loading is given to the tomcat when the wings go back as their is more pounds of wind hitting the wings as their is less wide lift than there is with wings some degrees forward. Should be about 85 psf wing loading. Yet the damn f-14A can sustain 7.5gs with actually pretty HIGH g wing loading. And remember that's about on par with I think some f-16 models. But of course, if you want better turning ability you just go to the sweet spot somewhere between 47-49 on the tomcat. To say that the G-loads don't get higher with lower wing loading is just pure denial.

However, assuming equal pilots, the F-14B/D and the F-15 probably are near equals. What do we know by the charts? The F-14 can turn tighter at slower speeds, while at higher speeds the Eagle can turn with a better rate.


Tomcat can go supersonic speeds with wings fully extended. It is pretty safe to assume that if they decided to, they could allow the computers to leave the wings some degrees forward from the default 68 degrees when going mach 2. They're pretty strong wings. They don't do that. That's because they want to maximize life of the tomcat. And this is because landing on a carrier is abusive and also because dogfights generally are fought below Mach 1. 0.8 mach to 0.9 mach usually. So we kill 2 birds with one stone, save lifespan of f-14 frame, and still give it supersonic 20 degree wing sweep dogfighting capability. But like I said most dogfights are below mach 1 and the ones that aren't generally are around the tomcat's maximum 1.2+ mach speed @ 20 degrees of wing sweep. So yes, it can keep up in dogfights no problem.


Yet both of these jets do not equal the performance of the Block 30 F-16C big mouth. The MCID Block 30 has better Ps than the Block 50 (it also has a nearly 1.3 degree per second turning advantage and smaller turn radius over the Block 50 at 10K). The Block 30 is a better performer because it is much lighter than the Block 50. While at .6 Mach the Block 30 has a STR advantage (though small, yet an advantage none-the-less) vs the F-14B/D (generally around .6 will give you the Tomcat's best numbers). And above that figure the Block 30 leaves it in the dust-


Depends on the f-14's engines and weight. Remember you only get a 1:1 thrust ratio on the tomcat with the GE F-110 engines and 50% fuel. It's not really a fair comparison, and remember, those engines were originally designed for the f-16, not an f-14 tomcat. Talk about hand me downs.



I have asked you to provide a demo of any Tomcat equaling or surpassing Solo Turk's F-16C Block 40 time of 15.1 seconds for the entire 360 degree turn.


Well I would show you, but apparently the guys that pulled 10gs sustained in a tomcat are SITTING IN JAIL AND THE ONLY OTHER COPIES OF THE TAPE ARE LODGED IN THEIR COLONS.


Remember, the big mouth Block 30 turns a little quicker and with a smaller radius (since it's many hundreds of lbs. lighter).


Mainly due to thrust to weight ratio. This isn't about f-16 mind you, this thread is a comparison between the f-14 and f-15 eagle. More specifically, the heavier therefore higher wing loading F-15E strike eagle.

The tomcat has the capacity to out turn the f-16. REmember? 20 degrees of wing sweep, 44-48 psf wing loading? The plane can turn inside of itself. You just need the required thrust. Can be done.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 19:38
by f-16adf
1. Again, Romano/Evans demo was in 1973, You have not provided a SINGLE POST VX-4 G LIMIT. And it was 8.5G, not 9!!!!!


2. Wrong again about the wing sweep of the Tomcat. Read the sweep angle for the emergency mode. It's in any Tomcat POH.

Mach .4 = 20 degrees
Mach .7 = 22 degrees
Mach .8 = 50 degrees
Mach .9 = 60 degrees

Even the article that I earlier posted about F-14A vs F-14B, the VX-4 Tomcat aviator says by .9 IMN the wings are back at 60 degrees.



3. The F-106 Delta Dart has the lowest wing loading of any fighter, so by your backwards logic it can out turn an F-14!!!! Right....


24,000lbs/ 695sqft. = 34.5




4. Still waiting for a Tomcat demo turning quicker than Solo Turk. Oh, that's right, because none exist-
The only jet in existence that equals that time is the baseline SU-27 Flanker-

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 19:47
by f-16adf
The VERY LIGHT F-16A was the first jet to TURN INSIDE A MIG-17, NOT THE F-14 OR F-15.


RANDY BALL WHO FLIES A CIVILIAN OWNED MIG-17 SAYS IT IN THIS VIDEO at 4:40 mark:

[YouTube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2-LprWf3NI[/YouTube]


Are you more knowledgeable about the turning abilities of the Mig-17 than Randy Ball???


The F-16A Block 1,5,10,15 and MCID Block 30/40 can out radius and out rate any F-14 or F-15.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 19:56
by f-16adf
Wrong again, the original engine for the Viper was the Pratt F100 not the GE motor.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 20:12
by garrya
gbigly wrote:You basically just cherry pick YOUR information and assume whoever said f-14 CAN'T turn over 6.5gs is accurate and a "real" pilot and whoever said f-14 CAN are diehard idiot fanboys. Admit it, you basically just a lockheed martin employee who can't accept the capabilities of the f-14

Nope, , i took the information directly from NATOPS and HAF flight manual , if data directly from flight test used to train all pilots is not accurate enough then nothing is. You , on the other hand, cherry pick a singular comment from a pilot and ignore everythings else

gbigly wrote:US navy tomcats have never fought mig-21s in a dogfight. It has never happened. I said mig-23, you misread what I said.

And what do you think the G limit of Mig-23 , Su-22 are ??
how about the Mirage that F-14 fought ??



gbigly wrote:The tomcat has more lift. I think about at the same lift to drag ratio with wings swept back to about 47-49 degrees, you still have 71-73 PSF wing loading if I did the math right. Of course i suck at it. I'll get more exact math later. That's on par with the f-15C mind you, and the f-15C doesn't have a heavy a$$ 2-seater cockpit with 100s of pounds of radar equipment in the back seat. But of course, we are talking about the f-15E eagle, which has about 80 psf wing loading vs the F-15C's 73 psf.
Also, the numbers for the tomcat are for the f-14D with around 1,000 extra pounds of sh*t for the IRST and other stuff. Try doing the wing loading math for the f-14B. Remember that already has a lower maximum wing loading (44-48 psf).

One again, since you pretty much obsessed with wing loading, i will just gave you the equation for lift
Image
a lower wing loading only mean that there is less weight per unit of wing area. However, the only time ,you can conclude that an aircraft can turn faster from wing loading is that those aircraft in comparison has exact same aerodynamic ( shape, air foil ..etc ). In others case, wing loading value doesn't mean squad since there are massive different in CL with different airfoil
Image



gbigly wrote:Wrong again. here's mike cinemara, former VP of grumman in his presentation of the f-14 tomcat to some senior's get together.

https://youtu.be/SsUCixAeZ0A?t=19m9s

Now if you like you may rewind to the start of the video. It's very informative. Now remember, Mike was vice president of grumman. He can't just say "we can take the tomcat to mach 3 and turn 18gs". No, he has to follow the rules or he could get in BIG and i mean BIG trouble. He must tow the line of what is "official". Nonetheless, he does prove my point. The tomcat can sustain 7.5gs at mach 2.0.

Nothing in there prove your point. You simply don't understand basics aerodynamics and cherry picked your information
Able to pull a certain G value is not the same as able to sustain it. Because even if structure problem aside, the aircraft still need to be able to provide enough thrust to balance the drag which is tremendously high at Mach 2.STR is not the same as ITR
. An F-16 can easily pull 9G at Mach 2 but that does not mean it can sustain that value at Mach 2
Image




Look at this photo. See the different between sustain envolope and intantaneous envelope ? Why do you think it look that way ?
Image


gbigly wrote:Except the tomcat has more lift and with the f-110 engines, more thrust than the f-14A models.

Lift is generated by airframe and not engine, engine can help with STR but not ITR.
Regardless, while F-110 has higher thrust than TF-30, it cannot break physics.


gbigly wrote:You don't over-g a plane if it can't handle sustaining it. There is a safety margin of turning, yet you are saying only 6.5 gs is sustainable but 9 or 10gs is perfectly fine for a tomcat instantaneously? Give me a break.

It is not about the structure margin but about thrust vs drag.
A fold out F-14 wing can generate alot of lift but it will also generate alot of drag. One reason why STR of F-16 so good is because it can generate alot of lift while still has very low drag while doing so. At some AoA , the LERX give F-16 almost double the CL value compared to aircraft without them
Image



gbigly wrote:It had a lower wing loading than all other planes currently flying as air superiroity defenders right now.

Wing loading by itself is meaningless without knowing exact CL. F-4 , F-106 , F-15 all got lower wing loading than F-16, yet none of them can beat F-16 in a turning fight at low altitude.


gbigly wrote:Here's the thing "honey" (i assume you are a girl because you said honey to me before). The lower altitude, the more abuse the plane takes. The f-14A was able to do 8.5gs very low to ground. That's more abuse. Higher up it would have gotten less abuse, but also less wind coming into the intakes which would have made the tf-30s more likely to flame out.

Look at the lift equation
Lower to the ground the air is thicker, you can go slow and still generate alot of lift
at higher altitude, the air is thinner, to generate the same amount of lift to pull the same G value, you need to either fly faster or use higher AoA. Both will generate tremendous drag. So just because you can pull a certain G value does not mean you will be able to sustain it. This especially true about the " 7.5G at Mach 2 " you bragging about

gbigly wrote:Nope, f-14A has less thrust you need to keep your speed up. The tomcat was able to pull 8.5gs+ because it had shitty tf-30s low to the ground for more air but low fuel for better T/W ratio.

Nonsense, the speed you turn at depending on the air density ( or in others words the amount of lift airframe can produced ) it has nothing to do with engine thrust. You can swap out any engine into the F-14 and the corner velocity will be exactly the same

gbigly wrote:The f-14 has the lowest wing loading and has the strongest frame of any of these planes.

No it doesnot has lowest wing loading. The body of F-14 can generate lift, but it the same case for all aircrafts when flying at AoA.The point are stronggest frame is also debateable given that F-14 has alot moving parts than either F-15 or -16

gbigly wrote: It therefore has the highest g load capacity as it is in fact, a dogfighter. The f-16 has around a 90 psf wing loading or so depending on model wing loading. that's higher than the f-15E eagle. So you're wrong on that point
And the f-14 tomcat still has lower wing loading. A 100% titanium wingbox. And a stronger frame overall for carrier landings. It is a tougher plane and it can therefore take higher g maneuevers
.

1/ F-14 do not have the lowest wing loading
2/ body lift are included in CL
3/ due to the mechanism of the swing wing, F-14 has lower structure limit than either F-16 or F-15
4/F-14 body can produce lift but it is also very draggy when doing so compared to let say F-16.




gbigly wrote:No my dear, it has very very low wing loading.

Mig-31 wing loading is around 665 kg/m2 compared to 431 kg/m2 of F-16 or 383 kg/m2 of F-4 or 255 kg/m2 of F-106. Surely low wing load value you got there

gbigly wrote: But it is not strong enough to turn tightly. It's wings are paperthin and if you look at the eagle, you'll see a gigantic arm or "glove" if you want to call it a glove, coming off the body and tapering off to a thinner wing. You don't have that on the mig-31. It just comes straight out thin.

If we follow your logic then both F-15 and F-4 will be able to pull higher G and sustain higher G than F-16 since both of them has lower wing loading and thicker wing. Opps , but they don't

gbigly wrote:"Air foil"? Please, you use ailerons and spoilers and or flaps to turn. That's what turns an aircraft

I dont know if i should laugh or cry at this point. It is like you know nothing about aircraft. Ailerons , spoilers ..etc are used to pitch aircraft nose.They act like a pivot point. But what generate lift to change the aircraft direction is the airfoil/airframe itself

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 20:15
by basher54321
To be fair chaps Gbigly doesn't seem to even know what Wing loading is, so I don't think there is a chance in hell he will understand any of the charts you are putting up. :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 20:43
by eloise
Gbigly seem like the kind of guy who would post jet fuel can't melt steel beam memes on Facebook

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 21:39
by f-16adf
In the F-14 Design Evolution video, Mike Ciminera is very careful in his choice of words. He says that it can PULL 7.5 G, not sustain it.

WHY?? BECAUSE AT THAT ALTITUDE FL350 AIR DENSITY IS FAR LOW. The only jet that can "probably" get the closest to that sustainable figure is Eurofighter Typhoon. And that's because it SUFFERS FROM ZERO TRIM DRAG WHEN SUPERSONIC (FIXED INLET LIMITS MACH NO. TO AROUND 2). Canards provide positive lift when supersonic, unlike tailed designs. And Eurofighter also has an enormous thrust to weight ratio advantage. Possibly F-22 as well??


F-14A at 35K and Mach 2 has a sustained G limit of 1.8

F-14B at 35K and Mach 1.85 has a sustained G limit of 2.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2017, 22:19
by count_to_10
f-16adf wrote:In the F-14 Design Evolution video, Mike Ciminera is very careful in his choice of words. He says that it can PULL 7.5 G, not sustain it.

WHY?? BECAUSE AT THAT ALTITUDE FL350 AIR DENSITY IS FAR LOW. The only jet that can "probably" get the closest to that sustainable figure is Eurofighter Typhoon. And that's because it SUFFERS FROM ZERO TRIM DRAG WHEN SUPERSONIC (FIXED INLET LIMITS MACH NO. TO AROUND 2). Canards provide positive lift when supersonic, unlike tailed designs. And Eurofighter also has an enormous thrust to weight ratio advantage. Possibly F-22 as well??


F-14A at 35K and Mach 2 has a sustained G limit of 1.8

F-14B at 35K and Mach 1.85 has a sustained G limit of 2.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that tails can provide positive lift in a turn, just not as much as the main wing. It probably depends on a lot of things, particularly the angle of attack.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2017, 04:57
by gbigly
f-16adf wrote:In the F-14 Design Evolution video, Mike Ciminera is very careful in his choice of words. He says that it can PULL 7.5 G, not sustain it.


Actually believe it or not he did say sustained. When he said "with a constant NzW product" that just means sustained Gs. Nz is Gs and so NzW is just Gs x Weight. So that's good for aircraft designers and engineers, which mike was a part of on the tomcat. NzW is just a way of calculating how much the aircraft weighs x the amount of gs it's pulling. So "constant NzW" means sustained Gs, in other words.

ACtually took me awhile to figure that stuff out but yeah. I'm learning.

WHY?? BECAUSE AT THAT ALTITUDE FL350 AIR DENSITY IS FAR LOW. The only jet that can "probably" get the closest to that sustainable figure is Eurofighter Typhoon. And that's because it SUFFERS FROM ZERO TRIM DRAG WHEN SUPERSONIC (FIXED INLET LIMITS MACH NO. TO AROUND 2). Canards provide positive lift when supersonic, unlike tailed designs. And Eurofighter also has an enormous thrust to weight ratio advantage. Possibly F-22 as well??


The tomcat has very little overall drag. Has some wet drag but this will not interfere with it's turning performance. So whent he wings are back at 68 degrees the spoilers are getting hit with wind that rolls off of them instead of tripping over them like the wind would on a F-15 with a fixed wing and therefore fixed spoilers/ailerons. The f-14 is very aerodynamic at mach 2.0 because it's wings are back. This means it's going to cut down on parasitic drag even though it has a higher wing loading at that degree of sweep. You just need enough thrust.

Mike said constant NzW which means "sustained Gs". So yeah it turns out the tomcat CAN sustain 7.5gs at mach 2.0.


F-14A at 35K and Mach 2 has a sustained G limit of 1.8


completely fabricated!

F-14B at 35K and Mach 1.85 has a sustained G limit of 2.


That's not what mike said and that's certainly what no one else is saying. Also if you go to wikipedia you'll see that it's true the F-14 can sustain up to 1.2 mach with wings completely in the foward 20 degree position. Good for supersonic maneuvering in a dogfight if necessary. And in dogfights believe it or not a lot of the time the wings will be computer controlled to be at 20 degrees anyways just for pure turning power.

I will now answer Garrya's posts.

Lift is generated by airframe and not engine, engine can help with STR but not ITR.
Regardless, while F-110 has higher thrust than TF-30, it cannot break physics.


I never said it did. I said the f-14 has more lift. And then I said the F-110 equipped (which are the F-14B and F-14D) tomcats have more thrust than the f-14A. 2 different things.

So just because you can pull a certain G value does not mean you will be able to sustain it. This especially true about the " 7.5G at Mach 2 " you bragging about


Look at the video again. Mike says "Constant NzW product" that means sustained gs.

No it doesnot has lowest wing loading. The body of F-14 can generate lift, but it the same case for all aircrafts when flying at AoA.The point are stronggest frame is also debateable given that F-14 has alot moving parts than either F-15 or -16


The f-14 tomcat is an air superiority aircraft. We aren't comparing it with a b-1 lancer. We're comparing it to other twin engine, large and long range planes, but also f-16 as wel despite that not actually being modern air superiority. The f-14 tomact does have the lowest wing loading. And remember, the mig-31 is not an air superiority aircraft it is 100% interceptor. Not air superiority.

As we have already covered, even the f-14A can sustain 7.5gs (or "constant nzw" like mike cinemera says in the video). That means with wings pulled forward above 68 degrees, somewhere between 40 and 50 is your dogfighting 9g potential. You just need enough thrust which you do not have on the F-14A. Only f14b and f-14d. So out goes the theory that moving wings aren't strong enough. They are.

garrya wrote wrote:If the f-4 phantom has low wing loading then why can't it do higher gs?


Because the f-4 phantom is mostly aluminum and about half the percentage of titanium by weight as the newer gen 4 aircraft. Tomcat/eagle have 25% titanium by weight, and the f-4 phantom has about 11-12% i believe. In the 60s titanium was hard to come by and much more expensive. By the time the tomcat came around they found more efficient ways of making titanium frames.

Give the f-4 phantom a 100% titanium wing box and maybe some stronger titanium wing bars, and you have your 8g-9g sustainability. Don't forget to upgrade the engines for more thrust, as well, of course.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2017, 06:27
by garrya
gbigly wrote:Actually believe it or not he did say sustained. When he said "with a constant NzW product" that just means sustained Gs. Nz is Gs and so NzW is just Gs x Weight. So that's good for aircraft designers and engineers, which mike was a part of on the tomcat. NzW is just a way of calculating how much the aircraft weighs x the amount of gs it's pulling. So "constant NzW" means sustained Gs, in other words.
Mike said constant NzW which means "sustained Gs". So yeah it turns out the tomcat CAN sustain 7.5gs at mach 2.0.

Nope, it isn't.Once again, you tried to explain something that you don't actually understand . A sustained turn is a turn where velocity, altitude and G value are constant ( or sustainable ) in others word the Ps in a sustained turn is zero . An aircraft can make a turn with constant G, yet with decelerate in velocity or decrease in altitude. that turn will not be considered a sustained turn.
FYI, directly from NATOPS manual F-14 with F-110 GE 400 engine can sustain about 2G at Mach 1.8 and 1.1 G at Mach 1.9
Image



gbigly wrote:The tomcat has very little overall drag.

Nope, given its rather bad STR performer at high velocity, it really does have alot of drag


gbigly wrote: Has some wet drag but this will not interfere with it's turning performance

Drag will also interfere with STR performance
gbigly wrote:. So whent he wings are back at 68 degrees the spoilers are getting hit with wind that rolls off of them instead of tripping over them like the wind would on a F-15 with a fixed wing and therefore fixed spoilers/ailerons.

Now you are not even trying anymore, spoiler/ ailerons are not fixed otherwise they would be useless in pitching the aircraft
gbigly wrote:The f-14 is very aerodynamic at mach 2.0 because it's wings are back. This means it's going to cut down on parasitic drag

Irelevance, even the Mirage will not sustain 7.5G at Mach 2


gbigly wrote:I never said it did. I said the f-14 has more lift.

It is also much heavier and generate loads of drag to produce those lift

gbigly wrote:And then I said the F-110 equipped (which are the F-14B and F-14D) tomcats have more thrust than the f-14A. 2 different things.

which is pointless due to the fact that the only example you got of F-14 allegedly "sustain" 8.5G is when it carry merely 12% fuel


gbigly wrote:Look at the video again. Mike says "Constant NzW product" that means sustained gs.

Nope, sustain turn mean constant Ps or in other words constant altitude and velocity

gbigly wrote:The f-14 tomcat is an air superiority aircraft. We aren't comparing it with a b-1 lancer. We're comparing it to other twin engine, large and long range planes, but also f-16 as well

Irrelevance , that doesn't change the fact that it has alot more moving parts than either F-15 or F-16

gbigly wrote:The f-14 tomact does have the lowest wing loading.

No it doesn't, i have explained it before. Wing loading = aircraft combat weight/ reference wing area. All aircraft body can produce lift at positive AoA but that margin is calculated in lift coefficient not wing loading. Moreover, if we talking about CL then LERX and negative stability of F-16 offer far better lift/drag ratio which is much more useful for STR

gbigly wrote:And remember, the mig-31 is not an air superiority aircraft it is 100% interceptor. Not air superiority.

F-14 is a carrier interceptor, basically a Navy Mig-31. It main role is to shoot down Tu-95 bomber by AIM-54

gbigly wrote:
Because the f-4 phantom is mostly aluminum and about half the percentage of titanium by weight as the newer gen 4 aircraft. Tomcat/eagle have 25% titanium by weight, and the f-4 phantom has about 11-12% i believe. In the 60s titanium was hard to come by and much more expensive. By the time the tomcat came around they found more efficient ways of making titanium frames.
Give the f-4 phantom a 100% titanium wing box and maybe some stronger titanium wing bars, and you have your 8g-9g sustainability. Don't forget to upgrade the engines for more thrust, as well, of course.

Nope, F-16 is mostly aluminium by weight, it got much thinner wing than all of these above, it got worst wing loading. By your logic , it should have the worst ultimate G limit and worst STR. Yet in reality none of them can beat F-16 STR at low altitude.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2017, 06:49
by garrya
basher54321 wrote:To be fair chaps Gbigly doesn't seem to even know what Wing loading is, so I don't think there is a chance in hell he will understand any of the charts you are putting up. :wink:

He may not understand but if he decides to post his gibberish to others forums in future, some people who disagree with him may decide to do some Google search. This thread may pop up and be very useful for them

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2017, 07:49
by f-16adf
Wrong, at mach 1.2 the wings are back on the F-14.

The F-15 and F-14 are stable tail designs, hence they suffer from small amounts of trim drag while subsonic. And substantial amounts while supersonic.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2017, 18:25
by basher54321
f-16adf wrote:The F-15 and F-14 are stable tail designs, hence they suffer from small amounts of trim drag while subsonic. And substantial amounts while supersonic.


Pretty sure those Glove Vanes on the F-14A were an attempt to reduce supersonic trim drag and improve supersonic turn performance - although the feature didn't last that long.

Two small triangular-shaped vanes were mounted on the leading edge of the wing gloves. These vanes are normally retracted, but are extended at supersonic speeds under the control of the air-data computer. The purpose of these vanes is to generate additional lift ahead of the aircraft's center of gravity, which helps to compensate for a nose-down pitching moment that takes place at supersonic speeds. These vanes are automatically deployed when the speed exceeds Mach 1.4 in order to push up the nose and unload the tailplanes, giving them enough authority to pull 7.5 g at Mach 2. The vanes can be manually deployed between Mach 1 and Mach 1.4, but will not operate when the wing sweep is less than 35 degrees because that would lead to too much pitch instability at low speeds. However, the benefit of the vanes proved in practice to be only marginal at speeds below Mach 2.25, and since they added weight and complexity, in the field they were locked shut and their actuators were removed.

http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f14_2.html


This is from a 1973 US Gov report : The F-4 and the F-14 :D

The F-14 glove vanes are controlled both manually and automatically. Their real value is at supersonic speeds, and their principal advantage is that they reduce the tail load (drag) and hence increase the power (thrust) available. There are several aircraft throughout the world that use canards for the same purposes as the glove vane. But, as far as is known, they are not as effective in allowing the aircraft to achieve maximum lift-over-drag (L/D) at high altitudes; a very real advantage where tight turns at high altitudes and supersonic speeds are required.



Capture.JPG


There might be more in that video but don't have time to drag through it again just now.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2017, 21:18
by f-16adf
True, but if the Eagle and Tomcat were truly unstable they would have needed computer controlled aka FBW to make the jets flyable. Without FBW an unstable jet (Center of Pressure ahead of CG) would pitch up. I read somewhere (Code 1 maybe) that if they could not make FBW work on the F-16, they could go back to a statically stable design by moving the wing back (Center of Pressure hence goes back). According to Hillaker, they had bulkheads in the fuselage that were designed to carry the load of both placements of the wing.


An unstable jet is nearly always more responsive/and exhibits less drag than a stable jet. However, the original Mig-29 (is a stable design, lacks FBW) yet is VERY agile (at both low and high speeds). The FBW unstable Mig-29M improves upon this already very impressive agility.




Yes, I believe the glove vanes were deactivated on the F-14B/D. I guess in theory it was a good idea (and they always just looked very cool). In reality, it seemed rather a different story though-

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2017, 21:32
by basher54321
No the glove vanes don't really make it unstable at high Mach (as far as I know) - neither the F-14 or F-15 are considered truly unstable which seems to be defined by the CG position as a percentage on MAC (you should be able to search for some of Spurts posts) - F-15C was described as Neutral stable IIRC. The F-14/15 do have a level of computer control (in the flight manuals) but nothing like the total FBW system in the F-16 - which has been covered on here many times including the actual reasons for putting the CG right back.
Then of course there is truly unstable - the F-117 was unstable in all three axis AFAIK not just one :D

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2017, 23:08
by f-16adf
The newest F-15SA has a true FBW system, the earlier models did not (they had a CAS).

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2017, 09:44
by basher54321
Yes some newer versions might do - don't have the manuals for them.

Another thing I didn't mention is that the F-16 is only technically unstable when subsonic not supersonic (code 1 etc) - clever use of the FLCS helps alleviate some of the issues this brings.

As I understand it the F-15C via CAS and destabilising affects of the intake ramps was able to unload its tail 30% when supersonic - probably still stable but interesting none the less.

The F-14 (NATOPS) also seemed to vary a bit in flight:
F-14D_Stability.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2017, 14:51
by sprstdlyscottsmn
So, I have a thought as to why this is so, because I have been able to see the effects of it in the glide ratios. As the wings sweep back the lift curve slope of the wings flattens out. This means that to produce a given lift coefficient you have increase the angle of attack. Now other than the swing wings the Cats most notable visual features are the linebacker shoulders above the intakes. I think these start producing lift above a certain angle. Now, when the wings are forward the lift generated by them is paltry compared to the lift of a long straight wing with leading and trailing edge devices, so they have a smaller impact to the center of pressure. Now at higher sweep where more AoA is needed they produce a greater percentage of the lift relative to the wing.

Just a thought.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2017, 15:18
by basher54321
garrya wrote:F-14 is a carrier interceptor, basically a Navy Mig-31. It main role is to shoot down Tu-95 bomber by AIM-54




One thing Garry - if they went with the F-111B that would have been pretty much a pure interceptor but the F-14A was designed with Air Superiority in mind:

Capture.JPG


So the A suffered with some major performance disadvantages close in (regards BFM) but wasn't as bad as was assumed.


Don't suppose anyone knows the original design life of the F-14A?- I have 6000hrs, 6.5G to 49500 lbs for the Fighter profile.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2017, 15:26
by basher54321
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So, I have a thought as to why this is so, because I have been able to see the effects of it in the glide ratios. As the wings sweep back the lift curve slope of the wings flattens out. This means that to produce a given lift coefficient you have increase the angle of attack. Now other than the swing wings the Cats most notable visual features are the linebacker shoulders above the intakes. I think these start producing lift above a certain angle. Now, when the wings are forward the lift generated by them is paltry compared to the lift of a long straight wing with leading and trailing edge devices, so they have a smaller impact to the center of pressure. Now at higher sweep where more AoA is needed they produce a greater percentage of the lift relative to the wing.

Just a thought.


Interesting thanks - wonder if the F-111 had any similar behaviour.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2017, 19:17
by f-16adf
Here is an article about F-14A's from VF-1 Wolfpack vs USAF F-15A's back in the late 1970's:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... e%20decade



The F-14A had an excellent turn radius at around 325KIAS (depending on altitude), hence they were able to close angles on F-15's (whose hard wing was a disadvantage at slower speeds).

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2017, 19:44
by basher54321

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2017, 22:17
by f-16adf
Here is another:


"On 27 November 1978 during the Barcelona in-port visit, CDR Tim Wright sent four VF-14 crews along with a VF-32 unit to Zaragoza for one-on-one- DACT against Bitburg based F-15s. John Inman, a participant, reported that the detachment was the highlight of the cruise. Political sensitivities in the U.S. defense establishment had previously prevented an F-14/F-15 meet. The Zaragoza DACT was strenuous and, as Inman indicated, proved that the main difference between planes was individual pilot skill. The Tophatter aviator, however, thought the RIO (with his extra set of eyes) was definitely an advantage. He also felt that the F-14 could out turn the F-15 below 15,000 feet, but above that altitude the Air Force fighter had the edge."

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2017, 03:36
by johnwill
basher54321 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So, I have a thought as to why this is so, because I have been able to see the effects of it in the glide ratios. As the wings sweep back the lift curve slope of the wings flattens out. This means that to produce a given lift coefficient you have increase the angle of attack. Now other than the swing wings the Cats most notable visual features are the linebacker shoulders above the intakes. I think these start producing lift above a certain angle. Now, when the wings are forward the lift generated by them is paltry compared to the lift of a long straight wing with leading and trailing edge devices, so they have a smaller impact to the center of pressure. Now at higher sweep where more AoA is needed they produce a greater percentage of the lift relative to the wing.

Just a thought.


Interesting thanks - wonder if the F-111 had any similar behaviour.


The answer is yes, because the basic geometry of both airplanes is very similar. As the wings are swept, the CG moves aft, but the center of lift moves aft much more, thus more stable. And more importantly, huge down loads on the tails to trim, which means more lift required from wings/fuselage and of course more drag. How huge? It's been about 50 years since I worked with F-111, and many of the specific numbers have fled my brain cells, but one number stands out. Tail load in a 7.33g turn at high mach number was 50,000 lb down on each tail.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2017, 22:59
by basher54321
johnwill wrote:
The answer is yes, because the basic geometry of both airplanes is very similar. As the wings are swept, the CG moves aft, but the center of lift moves aft much more, thus more stable. And more importantly, huge down loads on the tails to trim, which means more lift required from wings/fuselage and of course more drag. How huge? It's been about 50 years since I worked with F-111, and many of the specific numbers have fled my brain cells, but one number stands out. Tail load in a 7.33g turn at high mach number was 50,000 lb down on each tail.


Wow blimey so actually increased tail downloads!

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2017, 23:03
by basher54321
f-16adf wrote:Here is another:


"On 27 November 1978 during the Barcelona in-port visit, CDR Tim Wright sent four VF-14 crews along with a VF-32 unit to Zaragoza for one-on-one- DACT against Bitburg based F-15s.


That could link nicely to 4 Bitburg F-15s getting waxed by 4 Sea Harriers - but to remain impartial and not derail a V's thread with information, I will post part of the Isreali F-14A evaluation :D



Despite our preparations, we were simply amazed when we flew the F-15 against the F-4. The Eagle maintained its T/W advantage and turned much quicker than the F-4. Here we had a superior fighter that was also more manoeuvrable than the inferior (older) jet.

When we evaluated the F-14, the US Navy pilots at NAS Miramar told us that the Tomcat could perform equally as well in a dogfight with the A-4. This did not prove to be the case, however for when I flew the TA-4 against the F-14, the end result of the engagement was embarrassment for the Tomcat. No only could the TA-4 out turn the F-14, but during the turn itself, the tomcats energy state dropped so low that I was able to fly the TA-4 in the vertical as though the Skyhawk was the superior (newer) fighter and the F-14 the inferior! (older)

Assaf Ben -Nun also flew a 2 hour sortie in a TA-4F that included DACT against the F-14, and he to was disappointed to discover the Skyhawk was superior to the F-14 in the WVR air combat scenario - he then flew a 1 hour Tomcat mission - Ben-Nun remembered:
The F-14 lacked thrust, was complex and not user friendly and was not aerodynamically clean - indeed the jet shuddered every time I pulled high G or high AoA. During my sortie I flew DACT against Amnon Arad in a Skyhawk, and although we finished with honours even at the end of the session, I found it hard to believe that the F-14 had no edge over the A-4 in WVR combat


( Israeli F-15 Eagle Units in Combat )

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 12:37
by johnwill
basher54321 wrote:
johnwill wrote:
The answer is yes, because the basic geometry of both airplanes is very similar. As the wings are swept, the CG moves aft, but the center of lift moves aft much more, thus more stable. And more importantly, huge down loads on the tails to trim, which means more lift required from wings/fuselage and of course more drag. How huge? It's been about 50 years since I worked with F-111, and many of the specific numbers have fled my brain cells, but one number stands out. Tail load in a 7.33g turn at high mach number was 50,000 lb down on each tail.


Wow blimey so actually increased tail downloads!


To put that in perspective, total lift at 7.33g would be about 450,000 lb. So with a trim load of -100,000 lb, wing/fuselage lift must be 550,000 lb or about 20% higher. Increased structural weight and increased drag are the unhappy result.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 14:53
by mixelflick
basher54321 wrote:
f-16adf wrote:Here is another:


"On 27 November 1978 during the Barcelona in-port visit, CDR Tim Wright sent four VF-14 crews along with a VF-32 unit to Zaragoza for one-on-one- DACT against Bitburg based F-15s.


That could link nicely to 4 Bitburg F-15s getting waxed by 4 Sea Harriers - but to remain impartial and not derail a V's thread with information, I will post part of the Isreali F-14A evaluation :D



Despite our preparations, we were simply amazed when we flew the F-15 against the F-4. The Eagle maintained its T/W advantage and turned much quicker than the F-4. Here we had a superior fighter that was also more manoeuvrable than the inferior (older) jet.

When we evaluated the F-14, the US Navy pilots at NAS Miramar told us that the Tomcat could perform equally as well in a dogfight with the A-4. This did not prove to be the case, however for when I flew the TA-4 against the F-14, the end result of the engagement was embarrassment for the Tomcat. No only could the TA-4 out turn the F-14, but during the turn itself, the tomcats energy state dropped so low that I was able to fly the TA-4 in the vertical as though the Skyhawk was the superior (newer) fighter and the F-14 the inferior! (older)

Assaf Ben -Nun also flew a 2 hour sortie in a TA-4F that included DACT against the F-14, and he to was disappointed to discover the Skyhawk was superior to the F-14 in the WVR air combat scenario - he then flew a 1 hour Tomcat mission - Ben-Nun remembered:
The F-14 lacked thrust, was complex and not user friendly and was not aerodynamically clean - indeed the jet shuddered every time I pulled high G or high AoA. During my sortie I flew DACT against Amnon Arad in a Skyhawk, and although we finished with honours even at the end of the session, I found it hard to believe that the F-14 had no edge over the A-4 in WVR combat


( Israeli F-15 Eagle Units in Combat )


Does anyone know of this DACT exercise being performed by F-14's with the GE F-110 motors? Would be real interesting to find out what would happen then..

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 15:03
by f-16adf
Basher54321,

You are right. I am not a Grumman fanboy. All that I am saying is that at certain areas within the F-15's flight envelope (low speeds) it was out turned (smaller turn radius) by the Tomcat. In fact, the Navy A-4 could also out turn the Eagle at slow speeds.

The Tomcat also had trouble in the phone booth vs A-4:
Read, Roger Ball!, on pg. 366-372, HAWK Smith in a Skyhawk (with functioning slats) beat up on a Block 90 F-14A flown by Mauler. The Skyhawk with its LE slats could generally out turn both Tomcat and Eagle at slow speeds. The A-4 is also much, much smaller; while the F-15 and F-14 are huge.


The Eagle is a great jet, has high energy, but it lacks any sort of LEF or LES for improved slow speed maneuverability. The Tomcat is also a great jet, but it's VG wings only shine around a small area within its flight envelope. It has a very small Corner Velocity Spike. After that spike, its maneuverability starts to degrade.


The Iranians evaluated both jets and went with the CAT (Iranian F-14 units in Combat). It probably suited their needs more appropriately. They could use the CAT's radar and Phoenix system to great advantage. Conversely, Israel is a very small country and the AWG-9/Phoenix system probably would be of limited use. And with Israel's long experience with Mirage III/Nesher they probably preferred a "higher energy" fighter aka F-15 Eagle....




Finally, they just don't make VG jets anymore; and they don't make hard wing jets anymore. The whole "F-14 is better......" or "F-15 is better....." is nonsensical. I do not understand why people cannot appreciate both jets.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 15:25
by f-16adf
I was told by a F-14D aviator that in a 1v1 the jets "generally" were equal. But, the D model with its F110s finally had the ability to chase Eagles in the vertical. In a 2v2 or many v many he said that the extra eyes of the RIO really helped with SA in DACT.


Here is another perspective:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-eli ... 1610043625



Although some books do say the D Tomcat supposedly beat up on the F-15 (and there are a few that give the prize to the Eagle). However, we do not know the specific ROE? Were both jets slick? Who started offensive? Who was defensive?


Unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to speak with an Eagle driver (non Strike Eagle) about it.


There is an article somewhere out there that says the Eagle bested the X-31 (kept speed high, used the vertical, didn't slow down) while the F-14D slowed (where its VG wings exhibited best performance) and the X-31 used its TVC to kill him.



Ultimately, it probably would come down to the quality of the pilot.



But we must remember that the Tomcat was fortunate enough to receive a MAJOR thrust increase during its lifespan. Conversely, the F-15A/C has existed with the same thrust (or even slightly degraded) since 1972. If the Air Superiority Eagles were to receive F100-229's the advantage probably goes to F-15. However, without any sort of LEF/LES high lift devices, I imagine the F-15 pilot would still have to be very, very careful at slower speeds vs the F-14D Tomcat?



Spurts can probably explain this more concisely than me-

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 17:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
f-16adf wrote:Spurts can probably explain this more concisely than me-

Concisely? No. I'm too long winded most of the time.

I did speak with a pilot who did a simulated DACT against the X-31 back when it was hailed as the end-all be-all. At the merge he rolled horizontal and started to pull gently to keep his energy. Once he saw the X-31 commit to a TVC turn he went up, waited for the X-31 to start falling, rolled back down and hosed it.

I have been LONG studying the F-14 v F-15 argument, as in before the Raptor was operational. The same pilot I mentioned above was originally F-4E and did a brief F-15 stint before retiring. He has been in a 4v4 F-4E v F-16 that ended with the F-16s falling out of the skies, out of energy, due to weapons and tactics available at the time. He has been in an F-15 doing DACT with F-14As and saying that all you had to do was look at the wings to determine the energy state and plan the fight from there.

In the end, they are both well loved planes that excelled in actual combat. They had their design choices that are seen today as limitations. One is long since retired, the other is flying along side its replacement that completely outclasses it.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 20:50
by f-16adf
Yes, very well said.

I just don't understand why F-15 fans HATE the Tomcat with a passion, and F-14 guys HATE the Eagle with a passion.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 20:55
by basher54321
f-16adf wrote:Basher54321,

You are right. I am not a Grumman fanboy. All that I am saying is that at certain areas within the F-15's flight envelope (low speeds) it was out turned (smaller turn radius) by the Tomcat. In fact, the Navy A-4 could also out turn the Eagle at slow speeds.


Sorry never thought you were.

I could give you a list of 50s jets that would have no problems out turning an F-15 here or there - however this would be missing the point - swap the F-14A for F-15A in the evaluations and doubtful the Israelis would have been sat there moaning about a lack of edge - because there would be no excuse for not wiping the floor every time. I can of course put faith in pilots who had spent the last 10 years flying all types of A-A (Training / combat) in Mirages against Jets that could "out turn" them!



f-16adf wrote:The Iranians evaluated both jets and went with the CAT (Iranian F-14 units in Combat). It probably suited their needs more appropriately. They could use the CAT's radar and Phoenix system to great advantage. Conversely, Israel is a very small country and the AWG-9/Phoenix system probably would be of limited use. And with Israel's long experience with Mirage III/Nesher they probably preferred a "higher energy" fighter aka F-15 Eagle....


Israel did think the AWG-9/AIM-54 system wouldn't be much use in Middle East combat - which in their experience was all close in at the time. When Irans eval was taking place I think MiG-25Rs were already coming over (F-4s couldn't get them) so that was a requirement for them. I also know what they thought of the F-15A but am also aware of Irans experience compared to Israel at that time.

When MiG-25Rs started flying over Israel and the F-15s couldn't intercept them the Israelis might have had second thoughts but overall the F-15 has lasted a lot longer and was perhaps a bit cheaper to operate so not a bad choice.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2017, 21:04
by basher54321
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I did speak with a pilot who did a simulated DACT against the X-31 back when it was hailed as the end-all be-all. At the merge he rolled horizontal and started to pull gently to keep his energy. Once he saw the X-31 commit to a TVC turn he went up, waited for the X-31 to start falling, rolled back down and hosed it.



The slight caveat never mentioned with X-31 was that it only did well in exercises where both aircraft started close in at very slow speeds.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2017, 02:55
by count_to_10
basher54321 wrote:
johnwill wrote:
The answer is yes, because the basic geometry of both airplanes is very similar. As the wings are swept, the CG moves aft, but the center of lift moves aft much more, thus more stable. And more importantly, huge down loads on the tails to trim, which means more lift required from wings/fuselage and of course more drag. How huge? It's been about 50 years since I worked with F-111, and many of the specific numbers have fled my brain cells, but one number stands out. Tail load in a 7.33g turn at high mach number was 50,000 lb down on each tail.


Wow blimey so actually increased tail downloads!

Wow. I wouldn't have guessed that. I guess that must be the margin demanded by the VG.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 08:15
by collimatrix
count_to_10 wrote:
basher54321 wrote:
johnwill wrote:
The answer is yes, because the basic geometry of both airplanes is very similar. As the wings are swept, the CG moves aft, but the center of lift moves aft much more, thus more stable. And more importantly, huge down loads on the tails to trim, which means more lift required from wings/fuselage and of course more drag. How huge? It's been about 50 years since I worked with F-111, and many of the specific numbers have fled my brain cells, but one number stands out. Tail load in a 7.33g turn at high mach number was 50,000 lb down on each tail.


Wow blimey so actually increased tail downloads!

Wow. I wouldn't have guessed that. I guess that must be the margin demanded by the VG.


The F-14 would have had less of a problem with tail trim downloads than the F-111. It was actually a problem that Grumman took very seriously. Say what you will about the Tomcat, but the engineers who designed it did not lack ambition.

There were two design features which reduced trim stiffness in the Tomcat compared to the F-111. The first was the well-known glove vanes. The way these worked was pretty straight forwards; the little canard-y things would pop out forward at supersonic speed to help counteract pitch stiffness by adding lifting area well forward of the CoG.

The second feature is the pancake. Compared to an F-111, the F-14's wing pivots sit further out. A large part of the F-14's lift is of course generated by the big, flat fuselage. Since this doesn't move it means that the center of lift also moves less when the wings swing back.

There are trade-offs, of course. The glove vanes add weight and take up volume inside the pancake that could otherwise have been used for fuel storage. In service they weren't really used, and you really have to look around to find pictures of F-14s with the vanes deployed.

Moving the wing pivots further out is a pretty common design solution in swing-wing aircraft. In fact, it was really only experimental aircraft like the the X-5 that lacked a fixed wing glove. The SU-22 has gigantic wing gloves.

The problem with the wing glove in a fighter is that it murders roll rate. Those wing pivot mechanisms are heavy, and they live inside a giant, welded titanium box. Moving them further out will help mitigate the pitch stiffness trim problem, but it will significantly increase the aircraft's moment of inertia about its roll axis. No free lunches.

If the F-14 had been designed a few years later with FBW technology, it would be interesting to see how much making it unstable with the wings forward would have helped.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 14:53
by mixelflick
In the end, I'd call it a tie between an F-14D and F-15C. Both aircraft are big so will be easy to see, but both had superior thrust to weight ratios, could play in the vertical and held advantages in certain edges of the envelope.

The one feature working against an F-14 would have been if it didn't use its Phoenix missiles prior to entering the merge. Even assuming just 2, that's what... 3,000 extra lbs plus drag it'd have to contend with? I can understand why the F-14's which shot down those Fitters and Mig-23's were NOT carrying the Phoenix. Given those ROE's, I'd opt for sparrows and sidewinders too...

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 13:05
by gbigly
garrya wrote:Nope, it isn't.Once again, you tried to explain something that you don't actually understand . A sustained turn is a turn where velocity, altitude and G value are constant ( or sustainable ) in others word the Ps in a sustained turn is zero . An aircraft can make a turn with constant G, yet with decelerate in velocity or decrease in altitude. that turn will not be considered a sustained turn.


Except you fail to understand that Nz = G=load and NzW is G-load x Weight. He said CONSTANT NZW product. That means the plane was constantly at 40,000lbs x 7.5 (the g-forces)

If the plane in fact were not able to sustain the mach number, it would be due to poor thrust to weight ratio for some reason. HOWEVER, he said CONSTANT NZW, this means it WAS capable of sustaining it, provided you have enough thrust. F-14 has less drag and less parasitic drag when the wings are completely at 68 degrees, which is what they would all be certainly at Mach 2.

Certainly though, this is the number for the F-14A airframe, as all models that went in service should have the same exact frame. He did not mention specifically A, B or D during the whole "constant NZW" part. And we know this anyways, as that F-14A demo for Iran with wings @ 40 degrees pulled 8.5gs and ACCELERATED.

7.5gs when wings are at 68 degrees is no stretch of the imagination. Even if it's mach 2.


[FYI, directly from NATOPS manual F-14 with F-110 GE 400 engine can sustain about 2G at Mach 1.8 and 1.1 G at Mach 1.9


That's peacetime limitations. That's not what Mike was talking about. He worked with the plane, he knows what he's talking about. Period.



Nope, given its rather bad STR performer at high velocity, it really does have alot of drag


It can sustain 7.5gs with 80-85lbs PSF of wing loading @ 68 degrees of wing sweep @ mach 2. Period.


Drag will also interfere with STR performance


Except effective wet drag is very little with the wings back. Wet drag is always vertically planar to incoming wind. When the wings are back, there is less surface hitting that wind head on. When the wings are out, thus giving the tomcat more lift, you also increase the effective wet drag.

Now you are not even trying anymore, spoiler/ ailerons are not fixed otherwise they would be useless in pitching the aircraft


More gas lighting. That's is NOT what i said. I said the Eagles ailerons and flaps are FIXED in their POSITION. I didn't say they were FIXED as in STATICALLY UNABLE TO BE USED TO TURN THE AIRCRAFT. If the wings on the tomcat move, then the spoilers also move their POSITION or ANGLE as those wings move, providing more aerodynamic advantage. Use your brain.

Irelevance, even the Mirage will not sustain 7.5G at Mach 2


That's because that's a 1950's design. The tomcat has basically the same percentage of titanium by WEIGHT of aircraft as the eagle does. However the tomcat is about 50% HEAVIER than the eagle. That means more titanium. And that means your 1950's Mirage is obsolete going up against either one of them. Of course they could have just used even more aluminum, which would have resulted in more volume of aluminum to counter the the thinner and less volume yet strong titanium. But they didn't do that. Planes back then weren't designed with 9gs in mind.

It is also much heavier and generate loads of drag to produce those lift


Wet drag and "drag" are two different things. Drag is sh*t that hits wind head on like missiles and pylons, wet drag is smooth drag that does not break the wind. However, when the wings are back to some degree the tomcat is more aerodynamic. At about 40 - 50 degrees of wing sweep is where your 9g sustainability is on the F-14. Again, this takes into account that you have at least F-110 engines installed on the tomcat.

which is pointless due to the fact that the only example you got of F-14 allegedly "sustain" 8.5G is when it carry merely 12% fuel


If a navy plane that weighs 40,000 lbs + 3-4,000 lbs of fuel can pull 8.5gs and ACCELERATE and still have lower wing loading than the even the (what would have been at that time the *FUTURE*) f-15C at that point, then adding extra weight with more fuel, but at the same time LOWERING SOME weight with the LIGHTER WEIGHT F-110 engines... it will not impede on the F-14's high g sustainability. Remember the F-14 can sustain 7.5gs with lots of fuel at mach 2. That's at 80-85 PSF of wing loading vs the wings positioned at a 40 degree sweep which is mid 60's wing loading... You still forget the tomcat was very low to ground when pulling those Gs, which means more variable, bumpy and violent winds, yet the tomcat still pulled 8.5gs and ACCELERATED *DURING* the sustained turn (meaning there was still just enough thrust for higher Gs).

7.5gs SUSTAINED for tomcat @ mach 2 w/68 degrees of wing sweep. 9gs sustainability at 40-50 degrees of wing sweep. Of course, 9gs sustainability takes into account that you have at least F-110 engines installed on the tomcat.
Simple. Period.

Nope, sustain turn mean constant Ps or in other words constant altitude and velocity


Nope, Gs means Gs. Ps don't mean anything! See? I can do the same stupid childish crap you do. It doesn't change the fact that NZW is G-load x Weight.

Irrelevance , that doesn't change the fact that it has alot more moving parts than either F-15 or F-16


And that doesn't change the fact that the tomcat is in reality, a 10g sustainable aircraft with wings somewhere near 20 degrees of sweep w/44-48 PSF of wing loading and powerful enough engines. Again, this takes into account that you have at least F-110 engines installed on the tomcat.


gbigly wrote:The f-14 tomact does have the lowest wing loading.

No it doesn't, i have explained it before.


Yes it does. The F-14 Tomcat's maximum 44-48psf of wing loading is significantly lower than raptor, flanker, eagle and even MiG-21.

F-14 is a carrier interceptor, basically a Navy Mig-31. It main role is to shoot down Tu-95 bomber by AIM-54


It is an air superiority aircraft. Interception was one of it's most important roles, that's correct. But it was designed to dogfight. That makes it an air superiority aircraft. But of course, long range radars and long range flying are also required in a plane for it to be considered air superiority. The tomcat has all of those. It's a navy air superiority aircraft that can also intercept and strike targets with bombs. That is literally the official mission of the tomcat.

Nope, F-16 is mostly aluminium by weight, it got much thinner wing than all of these above, it got worst wing loading. By your logic , it should have the worst ultimate G limit and worst STR. Yet in reality none of them can beat F-16 STR at low altitude.


All dog-fighter jets are mostly aluminum by weight.

It's just that the f-4 phantom has actually about 9% titanium by weight, whereas the tomcat and eagle both have about 25% of titanium by weight. That's why those 2 planes can turn 9gs, and the f-4 phantom cannot. The f-4 phantom does not have a strong enough frame because of the low percentage of titanium to sustain higher than 6 or 6.5gs

And of course, f-22 raptors aren't really dogfighters. The f-35 isn't either. They're just kinda useless crap.

And btw, the low percentage of titanium in the f-16 doesn't really hurt it so much. It's a tiny, light little plane. When comparing it to the f-4 phantom, we see that the very large and twin engined phantom is quite disproportinoately light at about 25,000 lbs empty when compared to the f-16 of over 18,000 lbs empty. Add to the fact that the the phantom is a navy plane which had to be strengthened for carrier landings yet it still is disproportionately (size wise) lighter than the f-16. It was clearly not designed for high g sustainability. The f-16 has more strength in it's wingbox for higher sustainable gs and lower amounts of fuel as well. ALSO take into effect that the f-4 phantom has TWO GUYS flying inside of it, which means a longer and heavier armor around the RIO seat, and hundreds of pounds of extra avionics for the RIO to use. This seriously limits it's G sustainability by a huge margin, as the plane is STILL only 25,000 lbs empty.

2 different planes from 2 different eras.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 14:33
by f-16adf
There is a general misconception about F-16 wing loading.

1. What F-16 is being referred to? A very light Block 1, mid weight Block 30, or a heavy bloated Block 50 or 52?

2. The original F-16A Block 1 empty was about 14,900-15,100lbs. The area of Its wing "alone" is 300sq ft.

3. BUT......The F-16 also gets lift from its large LERX, tail booms, and unstable tail. That lift is around 30%. Even JohnWill, a General Dynamics engineer (he helped create the Viper) who posts on this site has attested to this.

So that 300sq ft. figure is actually more like 390-400sq ft.


That is why the original F-16A could out radius a Mig-17. No other US jet could even come close-





Now, the Block 50/52 F-16C is FAR, FAR, FAR heavier than a Block 1 A model and even a Block 30.....

So when people are referring to "an F-16", we must remember that there are many various Blocks with differing weight.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 14:59
by f-16adf
The same can be said about the original SU-27 Flanker.


wing area =667sq ft.
empty weight =36,200lbs.

Factor in its large LERX, twin tail booms, unstable tail, and center pancake. And now you have a total area of nearly 900sq ft.


So it's a misconception to say that the original Flanker has high wing loading, which is simply not the case.


The SU-27 can out turn all of the Teen series, except the F-16C Block 30. It has far greater AOA capabilities than all of them. The Flanker is the only jet that can perform an actual Cobra (a real Cobra has the nose exceeding 90 degrees); I'm not talking about a Draken super-stall or a Finnish Cobra.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 15:29
by gbigly
f-16adf wrote:The same can be said about the original SU-27 Flanker.


wing area =667sq ft.
empty weight =36,200lbs.

Factor in its large LERX, twin tail booms, unstable tail, and center pancake. And now you have a total area of nearly 900sq ft.


So it's a misconception to say that the original Flanker has high wing loading, which is simply not the case.


The SU-27 can out turn all of the Teen series, except the F-16C Block 30. It has far greater AOA capabilities than all of them. The Flanker is the only jet that can perform an actual Cobra (a real Cobra has the nose exceeding 90 degrees); I'm not talking about a Draken super-stall or a Finnish Cobra.


The f-14 is quite capable of over 90 AoA, it's just it's hard to control without a proper flight control computer. And the drakken didn't do the super stall, it performed a full cobra, which is anything that is 90 degrees and above. Flanker probably has more than 667 sq ft because of it's wider nacelle area, and that's also why the tomcat has 1,008 sq ft of wing area. The tomcat D version quite literally can out turn a flanker very easily.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 16:25
by f-16adf
Seriously, now you are posting just absolute lies.


NO F-14 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

NO F-15 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

NO F-18 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

MOST F-16'S CANNOT OUT TURN A SU-27.




The Baseline Flanker has lower wing loading than any Tomcat.



Here is a SU-27 performing a full 360 degree turn, turn begins at 4:25,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=290&v=4B00eSuLq0Q

That is basically 15 seconds or slightly less for the full turn.




Draken superstall is not a Pugachev's Cobra.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 16:50
by les_paul59
gbigly you have to be trolling, there is no way you have this much blind allegiance to the f-14 airframe.

The f-14 is a really cool jet but it never was the best turning aircraft. It had an advanced radar and long range missile for it's time, that is really what the jet was built around. It was a fleet defender that could help defeat the threat of long range cruise missiles.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 17:04
by basher54321
gbigly wrote:
garrya wrote:A sustained turn is a turn where velocity, altitude and G value are constant ( or sustainable ) in others word the Ps in a sustained turn is zero . An aircraft can make a turn with constant G, yet with decelerate in velocity or decrease in altitude. that turn will not be considered a sustained turn.


Except you fail to understand that Nz = G=load and NzW is G-load x Weight. He said CONSTANT NZW product. That means the plane was constantly at 40,000lbs x 7.5 (the g-forces)

If the plane in fact were not able to sustain the mach number, it would be due to poor thrust to weight ratio for some reason. HOWEVER, he said CONSTANT NZW, this means it WAS capable of sustaining it, provided you have enough thrust. F-14 has less drag and less parasitic drag when the wings are completely at 68 degrees, which is what they would all be certainly at Mach 2.

Certainly though, this is the number for the F-14A airframe, as all models that went in service should have the same exact frame. He did not mention specifically A, B or D during the whole "constant NZW" part. And we know this anyways, as that F-14A demo for Iran with wings @ 40 degrees pulled 8.5gs and ACCELERATED.

7.5gs when wings are at 68 degrees is no stretch of the imagination. Even if it's mach 2.




Gbigly - I hope for your sake you have simply misunderstood what you are being told because there is a massive difference between the definition you are using for a sustained turn (sustained G only) Vs the actual definition used in comparisons and performance charts (constant G/DPS/Velocity & Altitude).

Tomcat glove vane.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 17:37
by garrya
gbigly wrote:Except you fail to understand that Nz = G=load and NzW is G-load x Weight. He said CONSTANT NZW product. That means the plane was constantly at 40,000lbs x 7.5 (the g-forces)

1) to be accurate you cannot ever be at constant mass because plane will consume fuel
2) the fact that it constantly pulling 7.5G is irrelevant, a sustained turn is a turn where specific excess power is larger or equal zero which means you can't lose any altitude or speed while doing the turn

gbigly wrote:If the plane in fact were not able to sustain the mach number, it would be due to poor thrust to weight ratio for some reason. HOWEVER, he said CONSTANT NZW, this means it WAS capable of sustaining it, provided you have enough thrust. F-14 has less drag and less parasitic drag when the wings are completely at 68 degrees, which is what they would all be certainly at Mach 2.

no he didn't, according to flight manual even with F-110 GE400 engine , F-14 would barely sustain 1.1G at Mach 1.9


gbigly wrote: Certainly though, this is the number for the F-14A airframe, as all models that went in service should have the same exact frame. He did not mention specifically A, B or D during the whole "constant NZW" part. And we know this anyways, as that F-14A demo for Iran with wings @ 40 degrees pulled 8.5gs and ACCELERATED.

7.5gs when wings are at 68 degrees is no stretch of the imagination. Even if it's mach 2.

a) The F-14 in iran had less than 12% fuel
b) it also did not sustained 7.5G at Mach 2. Seriously, do you know how much drag is at Mach 2 ??
c)accelerating doesn't neccesary mean it a sustain turn, since an aircraft can make an instantaneous turn while nose down aka , it can trade alot of potential energy for small amount of kinematic energy. A version of this is the down spiral turn
Image

A sustained turn is a turn where both potential energy and kinematic energy can be constant.



gbigly wrote:That's peacetime limitations.

Right, so according to your logic, they have to lower sustain G limit of F-14 by 7 times in peace time? there must be some serious problem with the airframe then

gbigly wrote:That's not what Mike was talking about. He worked with the plane, he knows what he's talking about. Period.

Yes , he know what he talking about. You, on the other hand. Do not have the slightest idea of aerodynamic or even basic physic.

gbigly wrote:It can sustain 7.5gs with 80-85lbs PSF of wing loading @ 68 degrees of wing sweep @ mach 2. Period.

Nope it doesn't. Only in your imagination and interpretation due to lack of fundamental understanding. F-14 with F-110 GE400 can sustain about 1.1 G at Mach 1.9
Image


gbigly wrote:Except effective wet drag is very little with the wings back. Wet drag is always vertically planar to incoming wind. When the wings are back, there is less surface hitting that wind head on. When the wings are out, thus giving the tomcat more lift, you also increase the effective wet drag.

Wing out and you have more lift but also more drag. Wing in and you have less lift and left drag. However, even with wing in the drag is still massived at Mach 2

gbigly wrote:More gas lighting. That's is NOT what i said. I said the Eagles ailerons and flaps are FIXED in their POSITION. I didn't say they were FIXED as in STATICALLY UNABLE TO BE USED TO TURN THE AIRCRAFT. If the wings on the tomcat move, then the spoilers also move their POSITION or ANGLE as those wings move, providing more aerodynamic advantage. Use your brain.

Or may be you should use your brain and try to understand what is wing loading and what is a sustained turn :wink: :wink:



gbigly wrote:That's because that's a 1950's design. The tomcat has basically the same percentage of titanium by WEIGHT of aircraft as the eagle does. However the tomcat is about 50% HEAVIER than the eagle. That means more titanium. And that means your 1950's Mirage is obsolete going up against either one of them. Of course they could have just used even more aluminum, which would have resulted in more volume of aluminum to counter the the thinner and less volume yet strong titanium. But they didn't do that. Planes back then weren't designed with 9gs in mind.

Nonsense, Mirage structure G limit is 9G,so according to your own logic then if it able to pull a certain G value , it must be also be able to sustain that G value :wink: , Mirage wing is even more sweep back than F-14, so why doesn't it sustain 7.5G at Mach 2 ?
Image



gbigly wrote:Wet drag and "drag" are two different things. Drag is sh*t that hits wind head on like missiles and pylons, wet drag is smooth drag that does not break the wind. However, when the wings are back to some degree the tomcat is more aerodynamic.

Image
Total Drag produced by an aircraft is the sum of the Profile drag, Induced drag, and Parasite drag. Total drag is primarily a function of airspeed. The airspeed that produces the lowest total drag normally determines the aircraft best-rate-of-climb speed, minimum rate-of-descent speed for autorotation, and maximum endurance speed.

Profile Drag is the drag incurred from frictional resistance of the aircraft passing through the air. It does not change significantly with angle of attack of the airfoil section, but increases moderately as airspeed increases.

Induced Drag is the drag incurred as a result of production of lift. Higher angles of attack which produce more lift also produce increased induced drag. In rotary-wing aircraft, induced drag decreases with increased aircraft airspeed. The induced drag is the portion of the Total Aerodynamic Force which is oriented in the direction opposing the movement of the airfoil.

Parasite Drag is the drag incurred from the non lifting portions of the aircraft. It includes the form drag and skin friction associated with the fuselage, cockpit, engine cowlings, rotor hub ,landing gear, and tail boom to mention a few. Parasite drag increases with airspeed.
gbigly wrote: At about 40 - 50 degrees of wing sweep is where your 9g sustainability is on the F-14. Again, this takes into account that you have at least F-110 engines installed on the tomcat.

You haven't provided a single piece of evidence for this



gbigly wrote:If a navy plane that weighs 40,000 lbs + 3-4,000 lbs of fuel can pull 8.5gs and ACCELERATE

Could easily be a nose down turn :wink: so just because it was accelerated doesn't mean it can sustain that turn. Pilots may as well traded altitude for speed

gbigly wrote:and still have lower wing loading than the even the (what would have been at that time the *FUTURE*) f-15C at that point, then adding extra weight with more fuel

except that F-14 doesn't have better wing loading, it is just that you don't understand how wing loading are calculated

gbigly wrote:Remember the F-14 can sustain 7.5gs with lots of fuel at mach 2

Once again, this is the production of your wishful thinking when you don't understand what is a sustained turn

gbigly wrote:You still forget the tomcat was very low to ground when pulling those Gs, which means more variable, bumpy and violent winds.

It is easier to sustain high G at low altitude because the air is denser which mean either less speed needed or less AoA. Moreover , dynamic thrust at low altitude also tend to be higher.Both factors lead to higher G.
For example:
Image


gbigly wrote:7.5gs SUSTAINED for tomcat @ mach 2 w/68 degrees of wing sweep. 9gs sustainability at 40-50 degrees of wing sweep. Of course, 9gs sustainability takes into account that you have at least F-110 engines installed on the tomcat.
Simple. Period.

That just not what the manual say
Image

gbigly wrote:Nope, Gs means Gs. Ps don't mean anything! See? I can do the same stupid childish crap you do. It doesn't change the fact that NZW is G-load x Weight.

If you use your brain and do what everyone else do , hmm what it called. Oh yes READ, then you would know that Ps is specific excess power.Ps = zero when there no specific excess power left. Which is literally where aircraft achieve their maximum sustained turn rate
Image
The only one who childish here is you


gbigly wrote:And that doesn't change the fact that the tomcat is in reality, a 10g sustainable aircraft with wings somewhere near 20 degrees of sweep w/44-48 PSF of wing loading and powerful enough engines. Again, this takes into account that you have at least F-110 engines installed on the tomcat.

Too bad that Northrop Grumman , US Navy and anyone know even a tiny bit about aerodynamic would disagree with you :wink:



gbigly wrote:Yes it does. The F-14 Tomcat's maximum 44-48psf of wing loading is significantly lower than raptor, flanker, eagle and even MiG-21.

Wing loading = aircraft weight/ reference wing area, it doesn't matter if aircraft body generate lift or not, all effect from body lift , vortex generator are included in lift coefficient. You can repeat the crap about 44 psf wing loading all you want, it still will not become true.



gbigly wrote:All dog-fighter jets are mostly aluminum by weight.
It's just that the f-4 phantom has actually about 9% titanium by weight, whereas the tomcat and eagle both have about 25% of titanium by weight. That's why those 2 planes can turn 9gs, and the f-4 phantom cannot. The f-4 phantom does not have a strong enough frame because of the low percentage of titanium to sustain higher than 6 or 6.5gs

Moronic comment, SR-71 has about 85% titanium by weight so by your logic it would be the best turner ever. Except that it isn't

gbigly wrote:And of course, f-22 raptors aren't really dogfighters. The f-35 isn't either. They're just kinda useless crap.

Those " useless crap " can easily destroy F-14 any day in the week and twice on Sunday :wink:

gbigly wrote:And btw, the low percentage of titanium in the f-16 doesn't really hurt it so much. It's a tiny, light little plane

Don't try to dodge the question.
F-16 has thinner wing, and much higher wing loading than F-15 , F-4, F-106 ..etc so why can it out turn those aircraft ? according to your so called " theory" , F-16 would have pathetic turn performer, yet in reality it remained the best in STR

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 18:34
by f-16adf
He will dodge the question or just lie. He knows that the F-16C Block 30 or Su-27 can fly rings around the F-14D.

He also doesn't understand that the best turning ability of the F-14 is with wing sweep angles of 25 to 20 degrees (hence, lower speeds). That's because at those angles the wing is technically a "high aspect" ratio wing. ....THINK A-10!!!! THE A-10 HAS A HIGH ASPECT RATIO WING, CONSEQUENTLY IT CAN MAKE TURNS WITH A VERY, VERY SMALL RADIUS ALBEiT AT LOW SPEEDS.... Just like the Tomcat.

Once you go above the Tomcat's corner velocity, its turning ability (radius and rate) fall off sharply because of increasing drag buildup. And once the wings start to go back in the low 400'sKIAS, that's it... The trailing edge of the wings are consequently at a high sweep angle and that is generally detrimental to turning ability (low turn rate/ increasing turn radius).



https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaem ... iginal.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 18:54
by gbigly
f-16adf wrote:Seriously, now you are posting just absolute lies.


NO F-14 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

NO F-15 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

NO F-18 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

MOST F-16'S CANNOT OUT TURN A SU-27.


Repeating bullshit isn't going to make you win. Others can read the information I have consistently posted. The tomcat has a 44-48 psf wing loading with wings around 20 degrees, significantly lower than the flanker. When the wings are pulled back the wing loading increases, but even at 68 degrees of sweep, there is only up to 85 psf of wing loading.




Draken superstall is not a Pugachev's Cobra.


Drakken didn't do a superstall. The only plane really ever that had the "superstall" attributed to it famously is the f-14 tomcat. A superstall is a high AoA maneuver up to 80 degrees. Cobra is 90 degrees AoA and above. The f-14 tomcat can also perform a cobra but it is very hard to control the plane to prevent spin without a proper FBW system.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 19:06
by f-16adf
The only one posting lies and BS is you.


The Flanker easily out-turns the Tomcat. You are just to blind to see it.


ONCE AGAIN: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE POST ME A DEMO VIDEO OF ANY TOMCAT TURNING UNDER 19.8 SECONDS. THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE NONE EXIST.


You don't even apply the same criterion to your arguments. You include the F-14's tunnel in the wing loading discussion, but will not include the Flanker's? You did not factor in the Su-27's LERX, and the fact that it is truly unstable in pitch (which all help to lower wing loading). The Tomcat is not a truly unstable design, hence, it's giant stab tail is actually adding weight (tail down moment) to the main wing. AND INCREASING WING LOADING!!!!



By your illogical standards the Drakken, F-106 Delta Dart, and the F-102 Delta Dagger can fly rings around the Tomcat and easily out turn it because they all have far lower wing loading!!!!!


SERIOUSLY, STOP WITH THE TOM CRUISE WORSHIP YOU ARE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A FOOL-

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 19:30
by f-16adf
Here is the last F-14D demo. Look at how LONG ITS SUSTAINED TURN IS. Looks like over 22 or 23 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwRx4XceGg
Since it was the CAT's last public airshow demo. If the F-14 was truly a 9G sustainable jet; Why didn't the pilot and the rio show us a 9G demo turn (after all the jet was shortly going to be retired, ...right????) What would be the harm in that, and show the public what the jet is "truly capable" of...?



Nope, this demo is just as lame as an F-15 Eagles.

Sorry buddy-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYyYifwmMg

Video seems edited, the turn probably is over 23 seconds.


I believe this is the full (unedited) turn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sicTdp_PSLo


PRETTY LAME.....

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 20:37
by eloise
gbigly wrote:Others can read the information I have consistently posted.

Your information have been consistently inaccurate

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2017, 23:39
by botsing
eloise wrote:
gbigly wrote:Others can read the information I have consistently posted.

Your information have been consistently inaccurate

Agreed, also the inability to understand the facts shown to him is shocking.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2017, 17:45
by XanderCrews
gbigly wrote:Repeating bullshit isn't going to make you win. Others can read the information I have consistently posted.


But he's not repeating bullshit. And he is winning. You havn't convinced a single person here. Even your posts contradict the narrative you are trying to spin.

Who are trying to convince? I am a Tomcat fan and you don't even have my vote. Most of what you post is half truth or flawed. The F-14 is a notoriously heavy airplane. It needed to be to do its job. Now you think wing loading is amazing for it? and even then that its the be all end all?

There are also other pesky facts like The F-14 in operational service was not allowed to exceed Mach 1.8 do to fear of asymmetrical engine thrust should one go out. Only test pilots were ever able to take it to the Mach 2 numbers routinely cited, and of course with no weapons or external anything and an unloaded cannon.

:doh:

C'mon man. You aren't just whizing on my leg and saying its rain. You are telling us its "money stream" even I can't suspend my disbelief here.

The f-14 tomcat can also perform a cobra but it is very hard to control the plane to prevent spin without a proper FBW system.


Indeed the Tomcat has no proper FBW system to perform maneuvers others perform with ease. Yet you insist it's superior?

Just to review the tomcat is better than the Flanker yet you admit it can't do what the Flanker can?

Interesting argument.

Tomcats are always going to be my favorite. But they were work. Pilots had to work harder to make them perform like Thier peers, maintenance crews had to work harder. It was pinnacle of 1960s tech with some 1970s engines -- Thrown on later, and even then only some of them. Their parts count was mind boggling too.

The F-22 has super cruise, thrust vectoring, and tail fins with as much surface area as an F-16s main wing. It's no contest. It was no contest back in 2006 when the tomcat was retired and the disparity only grew when we saw what F-22s could do. F-22s annihilate F-15s which routinely beat on Tomcats. Routinely. It's the guy who can't afford mcdonalds trying to tell you eats at the nicest steak house.

F-22s can actually GAIN energy in a EM fight. which is like making a dollar for every dollar you spend. teen fighters start with a certain amount and only get worse

Gbigly is not only a fanboy and possible troll. He is about 10 years late on his fanboyism. This was really only a debate before F-22s became operational and as the F-22s were being retired.

The F-22 is vastly superior. It was designed from day 1 to do things that Tomcats were never going to accomplish. Ever. Tomcats don't super cruise as 50k feet. They aren't stealthy. Their avionics were barely up to 1990s standards when they were retired. Not to mention they are fleet defenders. Shipborne interceptor missile trucks. Dogfighting was secondary.


There are hundreds of written and recorded accounts of rookie pilots saying it took YEARS to learn how to dogfight and max perform a Tomcat. A 1st day pilot can make an F-22 stand on its tail and point and shoot to his hearts content.

Image

Image

Can't wait to see footage of Tomcats doing the same thing. please post

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2017, 17:59
by les_paul59
The best comparison for the f-14 is the Mig-31. Both interceptor's at heart, one was based on land the other at sea. But essentially they had some cool radars for their time with long range missiles, both two seat jets where the guy in the back worked the cumbersome radar.

Sure the f-14 is more maneuverable than the Mig-31 when the fight gets slow, but it sure as sh*t isn't going to fly high and fast with the mig-31.

comparing the tomcat to the f-15 and/or f-22 is a flawed, unfair comparison. gbigly is actually doing a disservice to his fellow f-14 fanboys by comparing it to much more maneuverable jets.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 09:03
by gbigly
Because neither of us have access to a working F-14 tomcat to prove our points either way, and since the charts you continue to annoyingly post cannot actually prove the f-14 tomcat is any less capable at sustaining High Gs without losing speed or altitude than the F-15E eagle or Su-27 Flanker, as they are only charts with no concrete evidence they are not faulty (and saying they aren't faulty because they are "FRUM DA GUBBMENT/MIWITAWY" doesn't prove anything) this will be my last post. We can argue until the end of time. The fact remains is you can't prove me wrong, and I can't actually prove you wrong in any other way than logically with some facts and information about a few F-14 tomcat demonstrations. The only way to TRULY prove the tomcat is as capable as I have been saying it is.. is to take it up into the air for some High G tests. But since we cannot do that, I am done posting about it. You can say whatever you want in response to the following information in this post, but you can't prove me wrong. I can prove you wrong logically but like I said, the only way you'll shut up and accept I'm right is if I took an f-14 tomcat up into the air and recorded the data. That isn't going to happen.

I believe that I have done all i need to do in this thread. Any honest aviation lover even remotely interested in the f-14 tomcat and why it was actually cancelled and what it's capability is... will see my posts and see yours, and see how you have consistently lied and provided factually bogus information in order to further whatever agenda you have here. They will see with all the crap I had to put up with and how in the end I really just look like a matyr going up against a cabal of bloodthirsty mob savages with pitchforks and torches. Therefore the readers will be able to properly navigate through all of the bullshit that this forum and it's biased moderators spew. And that leaves me with a feeling of satisfaction.

It is clear I have won this debate to anyone actually interested in the F-14 tomcat and it's capabilities. I now claim victory and I said before, this is my last post.

garrya wrote:
gbigly wrote:Except you fail to understand that Nz = G=load and NzW is G-load x Weight. He said CONSTANT NZW product. That means the plane was constantly at 40,000lbs x 7.5 (the g-forces)

1) to be accurate you cannot ever be at constant mass because plane will consume fuel




That goes for EVERY plane, genius. The f-14 tomcat isn't the only fighter jet that gets lighter as it consumes fuel. This clearly shows your bias against the f-14. It's pathetic.

2) the fact that it constantly pulling 7.5G is irrelevant, a sustained turn is a turn where specific excess power is larger or equal zero which means you can't lose any altitude or speed while doing the turn


Finally now we have closure. The plane is pretty damn strong despite having a very high wing loading with the wings back. So it's not the strength of the plane you have a problem with anymore. I finally got you to admit it. Good. Moving on.

gbigly wrote:If the plane in fact were not able to sustain the mach number, it would be due to poor thrust to weight ratio for some reason. HOWEVER, he said CONSTANT NZW, this means it WAS capable of sustaining it, provided you have enough thrust. F-14 has less drag and less parasitic drag when the wings are completely at 68 degrees, which is what they would all be certainly at Mach 2.

no he didn't, according to flight manual even with F-110 GE400 engine , F-14 would barely sustain 1.1G at Mach 1.9[/quote]

Probably could do more than that. HOWEVER, like I said, the f-14 tomcat can sustain 7.5gs (nzw) at mach 2.


garrya wrote:
gbigly wrote: Certainly though, this is the number for the F-14A airframe, as all models that went in service should have the same exact frame. He did not mention specifically A, B or D during the whole "constant NZW" part. And we know this anyways, as that F-14A demo for Iran with wings @ 40 degrees pulled 8.5gs and ACCELERATED.

7.5gs when wings are at 68 degrees is no stretch of the imagination. Even if it's mach 2.

a) The F-14 in iran had less than 12% fuel
b) it also did not sustained 7.5G at Mach 2. Seriously, do you know how much drag is at Mach 2 ??


What does it matter? I said sustained Gs. The entire time I said sustained Gs. Despite using some trickery with my wording in the last post and some others, I actually said absolutely NOTHING about keeping your mach number while sustaining those Gs. Certainly, as another poster has already beautifully pointed out, the entire time the plane turns those 7.5gs and sustains them, it stays above mach speed. So even at mach speeds with hot skin and engines working super hard the F-14 Tomcat can sustain 7.5gs. But I didn't say speed or altitude.

I did use some trickery because I wanted you to spill the beans. I just threw out "blah blah sustain mach number" but I did kinda back up my point here, I said. "HOWEVER, he said SUSTAINED NZW" in other words, i was saying that i understand he didn't say sustained speed. Obviously, it worked. You blabbed too much and from reading all of your posts it is now concrete that you are admitting that no plane does sustained 7.5gs at mach 2 without losing speed and/or altitude. With all your lies and all your fraudulence, this is one truthful thing you've been forced to admit. Thanks for making my job easier.


But you did do the one thing I counted on most of all. You eventually admitted that the tomcat is a seriously strong plane that can sustain 7.5gs even at mach speeds. This proves structurally that the f-14 is very very strong and is no slouch when needed to pull High G maneuvers. This brings us to the end of the debate about the F-14's STRUCTURAL abilities, as the wing loading for the cat just gets LOWER the further the wings are pulled forward allowing for higher G loads, despite you thinking it can't sustain those higher G loads at SOME SPEED OR ALTITUDE. It can still sustain the G-loads, however.

But of course, your only weapon against this plane is the whole "sustaining speed and altitude". Well, the 8.5gs dennis and don pulled and sustained sounded pretty level as they were already at low altitudes and using tons of fuel to pull that stunt.

Here's the thing you don't understand.

The tomcat and the su-27 are very complementary planes. One has slightly less wing area and fixed 42-degree swept wings, while the other has more wing area, but also weighs 4,000 pounds more and has Variable Geometry wings. They both have a flat pancake fuselage/wide nacelle configuration, swept back wings and on the su-27 that mimics the tomcat somewhat as the ailerons and flaps are also angled back further than the f-15 eagles. The funny thing is, the su-27 has 20,000 lbs of fuel maximum and for all that extra fuel it kinda shows as it's about 7 feet longer than the tomcat without those nose probes on either plane, which causes more normal drag in turning. Yet the flanker, with it's very large wing area yet good wing loading can pull and sustain 9gs (with lower than 20,000 lbs of fuel of course) at some speed and at some altitude and sustain that speed and altitude as well. So exactly what is it about you and your hatred of the f-14 tomcat that make you feel that it can't do the same thing, when it has the same basic design of the f-14 flanker? What makes you believe that the tomcat couldn't sustain 9gs with enough thrust to weight ratio without losing speed or altitude? Again, I don't care what speed and altitude the tomcat is limited to sutaining those 9gs WITHOUT losing said speed (whatever speed the f-14 needs) and altitude (whatever altitude the f-14 needs). Why do you believe it's impossible when it's so similar to the flanker in shape, design and size AND aerodynamics?

We already know the plane can sustain High 7.5gs from mach 2 downward to 1. That's with quite a high wing loading, almost as high as the f-16, but when the wings are forward you have lower wing loading, what makes you think it can't sustain higher than that? Well dennis romano said they burned the plane down to 4,500 lbs and they sustained that 8.5gs at 40 degrees of wing sweep and accelerated. At the very LEAST structurally the plane can handle 8.5gs and sustain them. And remember, you cannot turn that tight instantaneously if you couldn't STRUCTURALLY WITHSTAND IT. That means you can sustain those Gs as well.

And btw,The f-35A cannot turn instantaneously 9gs, i gaurantee it. There is no plane that creates some bullshit "vortex bubble" that would protect a plane's structure when pulling instant Gs vs pulling sustained Gs. The wind will hit it just the same. It's just a matter of aerodynamics and thrust. You certainly dont' have good aerodynamics on the f-35 but you also don't have enough wing area to even instantaneously turn 9gs. It has less titanium percentage by WEIGHT than the f-22 raptor does, yet weighs 75% of the weight of the raptor lol. You're not turning 9gs with that high of a wing loading. It's well over 100. Not even the f-4 phantom can turn 9gs and that has acceptable wing loading for a gen 3 fighter.

But of course. You still think the tomcat can't sustain the SPEED AND ALTITUDE at which to turn 9+gs. I already compared it to the flanker. They are basically the same basic design, except one has VG wings, and one has fixed wings. Exactly why is it that at some slow speed, and remember dennis and don apparently pulled those 8.5gs and accelerated to 400 knots which is not a super fast cruising speed, but what makes you think that tomcat can't sustain 9gs and also sustain speed and altitude like the flanker can? Even if you hate it so much that you have to say "well maybe it can sustain 9gs at some speed but it would be SLOWER THAN THE RAPTOR!", Ok fine, so bet it.

At least accept that

1)f-14 tomcat is a seriously strong plane and has a high sustained G tolerance (even if you don't believe it can sustain SPEED AND ALTITUDE)

2)the f-14 tomcat and flanker are very similar planes, with the flanker being quite noticeably larger than the f-14 in many ways, yet the flanker can sustain 9gs AND SUSTAIN the speed and altitude.

c)accelerating doesn't neccesary mean it a sustain turn, since an aircraft can make an instantaneous turn while nose down aka , it can trade alot of potential energy for small amount of kinematic energy. A version of this is the down spiral turn


I said sustained Gs. Not speed or altitude. Although I admit I should have clarified that. I was having too much fun.

Nonetheless, I feel that I have summed up the rest of your post, which is basically, rubbish.

I will add one more thing though.

The government and the military will lie to you. Yes you read that right. I said....

YOUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY WILL LIE TO YOU. So you know what that means? Your charts really mean nothing. You have to prove the data logically, and I have yet to see any actual proof of why the f-14 couldn't sustain speed and altitude while pulling 9gs. Just stupid numbers on a chart that looks pretty much identical to the f-14A charts.

Certainly, my whole argument from the get go was that this plane, the f-14 should have NEVER been cancelled and it only was due to greedy and corrupt hostile opposition from other companies and the money those companies gave to people like Dick Cheney and his henchman at the department of defense and of course the usuals, congress, presidents, etc.

YOUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY WILL LIE TO YOU. And that's exactly what they did with this plane. They tried since the 70s to thwart production. The Iranian purchase of 80 f-14s saved Grumman from bankruptcy This is what you can't understand. The f-14 program was subject to continued down sizing, including the cutting of test funding, multiple control systems and softwares, and it was scruitinized every day until it's eventual retirement in 2006, not too long after the Aim-54 phoenix platform, which some ships apparently were supposed to be equipped with ON DECK (not just on an f-14) to shoot incoming aircraft. was CANCELLED. There was never any credit given to the plane because of all the lockheed martin BRIBE money thrown around secretly to help defund the f-14 and grumman corp.

The main reason the f-14 was so bashed by the government and lockheed and other companies was because the f-14 could effectively intercept an SR-71 blackbird with it's phoenix missiles, which Iran had at the time with their f-14s. Of course this also is tied to the iranian revolution, in which US backed terrorists took over Iran and ousted the Shah.

You know that's the reason the mig-25 which we all know could ALSO potentially intercept an SR-71 blackbird stopped flying over Iran during the soviet days. It's because the f-14 could intercept the mig-25 effectively with it's phoenix missiles. Of course, after word of the mig-25 got out, we stopped flying sr-71 over Soviet territory.

But that's not all. The f-14D had an effective IRST system developed by general electric. This obviously could have threatened sales of the f-22 raptor. The tomcat was retired a year after the deployment of the f-22 raptor, and guess who now owns GE's AN/AAS-42 IRST found on the retired F-14D tomcat? Lockheed Martin. They now call it "IRST-21". Funny though, seeing as the next version of tomcats was the ST-21 variant that was never built.

Oh and btw, the f-16A has a lower wing loading than the f-15C. Still pretty high, however. Then again, it's not much bigger than the mig-21 yet it's several thousand LBS heavier. That's because it's frame is stronger than the mig-21's. For High G maneuvers. This is why the mig-21 is limited to 7g. It's an old plane not designed for higher than 7gs. Period.

Aside from all of this and going off topic, I believe my final answer to this thread will be that the F-14D and F-15E are very similar planes, both dogfight and strike capable. I think the f-14 has the strike mission nailed down, the f-15E is just more simple to maintain and in a dogfight would consume a bit less fuel due to it being lighter than the F-14D. In the end, it would depend on the pilot on who would win in a dogfight, but as a strike platform that depends on range, which the tomcat has, due to VG wings and low drag installations under the fuselage.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 10:51
by garrya
gbigly wrote:That goes for EVERY plane, genius. The f-14 tomcat isn't the only fighter jet that gets lighter as it consumes fuel. This clearly shows your bias against the f-14. It's pathetic.

Did i said only F-14 has that ? nope.

gbigly wrote:Finally now we have closure. The plane is pretty damn strong despite having a very high wing loading with the wings back. So it's not the strength of the plane you have a problem with anymore. I finally got you to admit it. Good. Moving on.

Selective reading again ?. I admit nothing, i simply explained to you what a sustained turn is



gbigly wrote:Probably could do more than that. HOWEVER, like I said, the f-14 tomcat can sustain 7.5gs (nzw) at mach 2.

No it cannot, learn the definition first before you post again

gbigly wrote:What does it matter? I said sustained Gs. The entire time I said sustained Gs. Despite using some trickery with my wording in the last post and some others, I actually said absolutely NOTHING about keeping your mach number while sustaining those Gs. Certainly, as another poster has already beautifully pointed out, the entire time the plane turns those 7.5gs and sustains them, it stays above mach speed. So even at mach speeds with hot skin and engines working super hard the F-14 Tomcat can sustain 7.5gs. But I didn't say speed or altitude.

It matters because what i told you is official definition of STR.It is what they used in manual and teaching BFM . It also makes a massive different in dogfight. When Ps is 0 or larger your aircraft can maintain that turn rate and altitude until it run out of fuel. On the otherhands, if you trade altitude or speed for G then you end up being a sitting duck very quick.

gbigly wrote:.I did use some trickery because I wanted you to spill the beans. I just threw out "blah blah sustain mach number" but I did kinda back up my point here, I said. "HOWEVER, he said SUSTAINED NZW" in other words, i was saying that i understand he didn't say sustained speed

No , you didn't use any trickery. You just don't know the definition of a sustained turn. You would have more dignity if you simply admitted that you didn't know instead of pretending to be a smart a$$ while you don't even understand the meaning of sustained G or wing loading.

gbigly wrote:Obviously, it worked. You blabbed too much and from reading all of your posts it is now concrete that you are admitting that no plane does sustained 7.5gs at mach 2 without losing speed and/or altitude.

Again, a sustained G turn is defined as a turn where specific excess power is > or equal 0. In other words, no lost in speed or altitude.

gbigly wrote:With all your lies and all your fraudulence, this is one truthful thing you've been forced to admit. Thanks for making my job easier.

I lied where ?. Why don't you quote it out for everyone to see ?. Come on, i dare you :mrgreen:

gbigly wrote:But you did do the one thing I counted on most of all. You eventually admitted that the tomcat is a seriously strong plane that can sustain 7.5gs even at mach speeds.

Using your "definition" of sustain G then F-16 structure is much stronger than F-14 since it can "sustained" 9G at Mach speed :wink:

gbigly wrote:This proves structurally that the f-14 is very very strong and is no slouch when needed to pull High G maneuvers. This brings us to the end of the debate about the F-14's STRUCTURAL abilities, as the wing loading for the cat just gets LOWER the further the wings are pulled forward allowing for higher G loads

Wing loading doesn't change as you move it around because reference wing area will be the same. The thing that change is the coefficient of lift. Regardless, F-14 structure limit still much lower than F-16 and the like

gbigly wrote:despite you thinking it can't sustain those higher G loads at SOME SPEED OR ALTITUDE. It can still sustain the G-loads, however.

My posts are not what i think but data direct from flight test. What me or you think is irrelevant

gbigly wrote:But of course, your only weapon against this plane is the whole "sustaining speed and altitude"

One more time, it is the official definition, if you lose altitude or speed while you turn then it is an ITR turn. That is what not only me but everyone else tried to teach you for the last 3-4 pages

gbigly wrote:Well, the 8.5gs dennis and don pulled and sustained sounded pretty level as they were already at low altitudes and using tons of fuel to pull that stunt

So you argue with " sound" and " feel" now ?


gbigly wrote:Here's the thing you don't understand.
The tomcat and the su-27 are very complementary planes. One has slightly less wing area and fixed 42-degree swept wings, while the other has more wing area, but also weighs 4,000 pounds more and has Variable Geometry wings. They both have a flat pancake fuselage/wide nacelle configuration, swept back wings and on the su-27 that mimics the tomcat somewhat as the ailerons and flaps are also angled back further than the f-15 eagles. The funny thing is, the su-27 has 20,000 lbs of fuel maximum and for all that extra fuel it kinda shows as it's about 7 feet longer than the tomcat without those nose probes on either plane, which causes more normal drag in turning. Yet the flanker, with it's very large wing area yet good wing loading can pull and sustain 9gs (with lower than 20,000 lbs of fuel of course) at some speed and at some altitude and sustain that speed and altitude as well. So exactly what is it about you and your hatred of the f-14 tomcat that make you feel that it can't do the same thing, when it has the same basic design of the f-14 flanker? What makes you believe that the tomcat couldn't sustain 9gs with enough thrust to weight ratio without losing speed or altitude?

They are not the same. Not by a long shot.
a) F-14 has variable geometry wing and wing gloves so that quite a bit more moving parts than Su-27
b) Su-27 has LERX ( and a massive one) that things create vortex when aircraft turn at positive AoA , so su-27 CLmax is much better than aircraft without LERX. And it can achieve that CL value with very little added drag

Image
c) Su-27 is an unstable stable aircraft. So just like F-16, su-27's tail added lift rather than decrease lift, unlike F-14 massive tail
d) Su-27 has better T/W too


gbigly wrote: Again, I don't care what speed and altitude the tomcat is limited to sutaining those 9gs WITHOUT losing said speed (whatever speed the f-14 needs) and altitude (whatever altitude the f-14 needs).

You don't care because you don't understand how speed and altitude affect aircraft design. For example: at low altitude F-16 STR is better than F-15, but at high altitude the situation is opposite.

gbigly wrote:We already know the plane can sustain High 7.5gs from mach 2 downward to 1

That is not a sustaining turn, F-14 can make a 7.5G instantaneous turn at Mach 2, and due to the tremendous drag it will be decelerated to Mach 1. For comparison sake F-16 can make a 9G instantaneous turn at Mach2 but no one in their right mind would say F-16 can sustain 9G at Mach 2

gbigly wrote:. That's with quite a high wing loading, almost as high as the f-16, but when the wings are forward you have lower wing loading, what makes you think it can't sustain higher than that?

a) what change when you moved wing sweep is CL rather than wing load
b) if you move the wing forward then you will have higher lift but go along with that is higher drag. For a sustained turn, higher drag is bad. One reason why F-16 is so good with STR is the fact that it can generate a lot of lift but with very little drag.


gbigly wrote:Well dennis romano said they burned the plane down to 4,500 lbs and they sustained that 8.5gs at 40 degrees of wing sweep and accelerated. At the very LEAST structurally the plane can handle 8.5gs and sustain them. And remember, you cannot turn that tight instantaneously if you couldn't STRUCTURALLY WITHSTAND IT. That means you can sustain those Gs as well

I already explained this. Just because the structure of aircraft doesn't break up at a certain G value doesn't mean the aircraft will be able to sustain that G value at any given altitude and speed. Why do you think they used EM graph to measure performer between F-16 , Mirage , F-15E ..etc even though they all have similar structure limit ?. It is because lift, drag , thrust matter. Like i have stated in the other thread, F-14 excess at low speed while F-15, F-16 excess at high speed dogfight
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=4152&p=363465#p363465

gbigly wrote:And btw,The f-35A cannot turn instantaneously 9gs, i gaurantee it

It has already been tested to 9.9G so your " guarantee" doesn't mean anything

gbigly wrote: There is no plane that creates some bullshit "vortex bubble" that would protect a plane's structure when pulling instant Gs vs pulling sustained Gs. The wind will hit it just the same.

The vortex job is not to increase plane structure strength but to increase lift
Image
Image
Vortex creating device help reduce pressure on the upper surface of the wing. Thus lift is increased alot while at the same time drag rise very little ( to have the same amount of lift by increasing wing area then you will ended up with alot more drag)
Image


gbigly wrote:You certainly dont' have good aerodynamics on the f-35 but you also don't have enough wing area to even instantaneously turn 9gs. It has less titanium percentage by WEIGHT than the f-22 raptor does, yet weighs 75% of the weight of the raptor lol. You're not turning 9gs with that high of a wing loading. It's well over 100. Not even the f-4 phantom can turn 9gs and that has acceptable wing loading for a gen 3 fighter.

a) Wing loading of F-35 is actually not that different from F-16 when fuel is equalized for similar mission profiles
b) wing loading is not how you estimate lift.

Image
F-35 has quite big CL due to its negative stable design, vortex device ( chime) , and it isn't AoA limited like F-16 which mean even if CL at similar AoA is the same or inferior to F-16, it can use slightly higher AoA for higher CL value.




gbigly wrote:Even if you hate it so much that you have to say

I don't generally hate it, but i have low tolerance for BS

gbigly wrote:At least accept that
1)f-14 tomcat is a seriously strong plane and has a high sustained G tolerance (even if you don't believe it can sustain SPEED AND ALTITUDE)

You really need to learn why it is called sustained G value


gbigly wrote:2)the f-14 tomcat and flanker are very similar planes, with the flanker being quite noticeably larger than the f-14 in many ways, yet the flanker can sustain 9gs AND SUSTAIN the speed and altitude.

Flanker has better lift/drag , better T/W , negative stability ,less moving parts

gbigly wrote:Nonetheless, I feel that I have summed up the rest of your post, which is basically, rubbish.

Just because something doesn't fit your world view doesn't mean it is rubbish. In fact, i believe that deep down you know you lost the argument horribly and try to find a way out

gbigly wrote:I will add one more thing though.
The government and the military will lie to you. Yes you read that right. I said....
YOUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY WILL LIE TO YOU. So you know what that means? Your charts really mean nothing..

Sorry but if i have to choose between flight test data and a random fanboy on the internet that lacked simple understanding of aerodynamic then i would have to go with flight test data. It is a no brainer

gbigly wrote:You have to prove the data logically, and I have yet to see any actual proof of why the f-14 couldn't sustain speed and altitude while pulling 9gs. Just stupid numbers on a chart that looks pretty much identical to the f-14A charts

TBH, I have yet to see any logical argument from you.Moreover, the number only looks stupid when you don't understand them

gbigly wrote:Oh and btw, the f-16A has a lower wing loading than the f-15C. Still pretty high, however. Then again, it's not much bigger than the mig-21 yet it's several thousand LBS heavier. That's because it's frame is stronger than the mig-21's. For High G maneuvers. This is why the mig-21 is limited to 7g. It's an old plane not designed for higher than 7gs. Period.

Don't try to dodge the question, How about F-106 ? why don't F-15C out turn F-16C significantly ?
If your argument is due to structure G limit then how come F-16 can still out turn Mig-21 at altitude where both of them has less than 7G ITR due to air density ?

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 11:14
by garrya
gbigly wrote:Because neither of us have access to a working F-14 tomcat to prove our points either way

So let me sum this up, your solution to a lost argument is to come up with an impossible scenario so that opposition can't claim victory? :mrgreen:


gbigly wrote:and since the charts you continue to annoyingly post cannot actually prove the f-14 tomcat is any less capable at sustaining High Gs without losing speed or altitude than the F-15E eagle or Su-27 Flanker

It does if you know how to read them, but i understand it is very hard if you don't have the basics aerodynamic knowledge. There is no shame in that, everyone can learn if they wish to


gbigly wrote:as they are only charts with no concrete evidence they are not faulty

Those charts are data from flight test so they are as accurate as you can get. Or you can take F-16adc approach and find a video of F-14 finishing a turn quickly :wink:


gbigly wrote:The fact remains is you can't prove me wrong, and I can't actually prove you wrong in any other way than logically with some facts and information about a few F-14 tomcat demonstrations. The only way to TRULY prove the tomcat is as capable as I have been saying it is.. is to take it up into the air for some High G tests. But since we cannot do that, I am done posting about it. You can say whatever you want in response to the following information in this post, but you can't prove me wrong. I can prove you wrong logically but like I said, the only way you'll shut up and accept I'm right is if I took an f-14 tomcat up into the air and recorded the data. That isn't going to happen.

So after 4-5 pages of : not understand what a sustained turn is, not understand what wing loading is , not know how to read an EM charts, not know how lift is calculated, not know how vortex improve lift ....etc you still have the confident to say that i haven't proved you wrong. :drool:

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 14:33
by f-16adf
NOBODY HERE HATES THE TOMCAT.

It nor the F-15A/C/E Eagle were(are) the apex of aerospace design. Technology marches on. The Eagle and the Tomcat are from more than four decades ago. LET ME REPEAT THAT, ...OVER FOUR LONG DECADES AGO.

Just because people here are using credible material to buttress their arguments, you assume it to be false? Those are actual NATOPS documents.



1. The Mig-29 and Su-27 were designed by initially envisioning the optimum wing sweep angle (which they both judged to be 42 degrees), second, adding a large LERX, and finally the wide spaced engines. Even Mikhail Simonov (the father of the Flanker) has attested to this. The wide spaced engines/pancake are a RESULT of the large LERX, not the other way around. See, you Grummanites believe that just because any jet has wide spaced engines or a pancake you immediately come to the conclusion that: THEY STOLE IT FROM THE F-14 DESIGN. Or: IT'S A COPY FROM THE F-14.

By using that same illogical thought process, did Grumman and McDonnell Douglas copy the concept of twin vertical tails from the Mig-25 design for their jets?



2. According to Gillcrist's book TOMCAT! THE GRUMMAN F-14 STORY, pg.50, Don and Dennis burned down to 2,500lbs of fuel, not 4,500lbs as you say. Bingo fuel for the original A model was generally 42,000lbs. Evans and Romano were even under that figure.

3. Pg. 253 of the book ROGER BALL!, VX-4 aviator HAWK Smith tested his Tomcat vs a Mig-17 in turn performance: "The turn comparisons were unsettling but not surprising. With the Tomcat's wings manually set to thirty-five degrees, their forward sweep configuration, and both aircraft starting at ten thousand feet and 325 knots, the Mig-17 could maintain altitude and complete a max-rate 360-degree turn while the F-14 still had ninety degrees to go. The Tomcat also bled seventy-five knots and lost several hundred feet in the same turn. The Mig didn't have much of a power plant but it had a terrific wing."

4. You Grummanites exhibit visceral anger of other designs that have certain aerodynamic or performance characteristics superior to the F-14's.


5. And most absurd of all, you Grummanites can't get over the movie TOPGUN. Many of you were not even born in 1986. And probably some of what you learned is from an internet game with false parameters.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 15:14
by XanderCrews
gbigly wrote:Because neither of us have access to a working F-14 tomcat to prove our points either way, and since the charts you continue to annoyingly post cannot actually prove the f-14 tomcat is any less capable at sustaining High Gs without losing speed or altitude than the F-15E eagle or Su-27 Flanker, as they are only charts with no concrete evidence they are not faulty (and saying they aren't faulty because they are "FRUM DA GUBBMENT/MIWITAWY" doesn't prove anything) this will be my last post. We can argue until the end of time. The fact remains is you can't prove me wrong, and I can't actually prove you wrong in any other way than logically with some facts and information about a few F-14 tomcat demonstrations. The only way to TRULY prove the tomcat is as capable as I have been saying it is.. is to take it up into the air for some High G tests. But since we cannot do that, I am done posting about it. You can say whatever you want in response to the following information in this post, but you can't prove me wrong. I can prove you wrong logically but like I said, the only way you'll shut up and accept I'm right is if I took an f-14 tomcat up into the air and recorded the data. That isn't going to happen.

I believe that I have done all i need to do in this thread. Any honest aviation lover even remotely interested in the f-14 tomcat and why it was actually cancelled and what it's capability is... will see my posts and see yours, and see how you have consistently lied and provided factually bogus information in order to further whatever agenda you have here. They will see with all the crap I had to put up with and how in the end I really just look like a matyr going up against a cabal of bloodthirsty mob savages with pitchforks and torches. Therefore the readers will be able to properly navigate through all of the bullshit that this forum and it's biased moderators spew. And that leaves me with a feeling of satisfaction.

It is clear I have won this debate to anyone actually interested in the F-14 tomcat and it's capabilities. I now claim victory and I said before, this is my last post.

garrya wrote:
gbigly wrote:Except you fail to understand that Nz = G=load and NzW is G-load x Weight. He said CONSTANT NZW product. That means the plane was constantly at 40,000lbs x 7.5 (the g-forces)

1) to be accurate you cannot ever be at constant mass because plane will consume fuel




That goes for EVERY plane, genius. The f-14 tomcat isn't the only fighter jet that gets lighter as it consumes fuel. This clearly shows your bias against the f-14. It's pathetic.

2) the fact that it constantly pulling 7.5G is irrelevant, a sustained turn is a turn where specific excess power is larger or equal zero which means you can't lose any altitude or speed while doing the turn


Finally now we have closure. The plane is pretty damn strong despite having a very high wing loading with the wings back. So it's not the strength of the plane you have a problem with anymore. I finally got you to admit it. Good. Moving on.

gbigly wrote:If the plane in fact were not able to sustain the mach number, it would be due to poor thrust to weight ratio for some reason. HOWEVER, he said CONSTANT NZW, this means it WAS capable of sustaining it, provided you have enough thrust. F-14 has less drag and less parasitic drag when the wings are completely at 68 degrees, which is what they would all be certainly at Mach 2.

no he didn't, according to flight manual even with F-110 GE400 engine , F-14 would barely sustain 1.1G at Mach 1.9


Probably could do more than that. HOWEVER, like I said, the f-14 tomcat can sustain 7.5gs (nzw) at mach 2.


garrya wrote:
gbigly wrote: Certainly though, this is the number for the F-14A airframe, as all models that went in service should have the same exact frame. He did not mention specifically A, B or D during the whole "constant NZW" part. And we know this anyways, as that F-14A demo for Iran with wings @ 40 degrees pulled 8.5gs and ACCELERATED.

7.5gs when wings are at 68 degrees is no stretch of the imagination. Even if it's mach 2.

a) The F-14 in iran had less than 12% fuel
b) it also did not sustained 7.5G at Mach 2. Seriously, do you know how much drag is at Mach 2 ??


What does it matter? I said sustained Gs. The entire time I said sustained Gs. Despite using some trickery with my wording in the last post and some others, I actually said absolutely NOTHING about keeping your mach number while sustaining those Gs. Certainly, as another poster has already beautifully pointed out, the entire time the plane turns those 7.5gs and sustains them, it stays above mach speed. So even at mach speeds with hot skin and engines working super hard the F-14 Tomcat can sustain 7.5gs. But I didn't say speed or altitude.

I did use some trickery because I wanted you to spill the beans. I just threw out "blah blah sustain mach number" but I did kinda back up my point here, I said. "HOWEVER, he said SUSTAINED NZW" in other words, i was saying that i understand he didn't say sustained speed. Obviously, it worked. You blabbed too much and from reading all of your posts it is now concrete that you are admitting that no plane does sustained 7.5gs at mach 2 without losing speed and/or altitude. With all your lies and all your fraudulence, this is one truthful thing you've been forced to admit. Thanks for making my job easier.


But you did do the one thing I counted on most of all. You eventually admitted that the tomcat is a seriously strong plane that can sustain 7.5gs even at mach speeds. This proves structurally that the f-14 is very very strong and is no slouch when needed to pull High G maneuvers. This brings us to the end of the debate about the F-14's STRUCTURAL abilities, as the wing loading for the cat just gets LOWER the further the wings are pulled forward allowing for higher G loads, despite you thinking it can't sustain those higher G loads at SOME SPEED OR ALTITUDE. It can still sustain the G-loads, however.

But of course, your only weapon against this plane is the whole "sustaining speed and altitude". Well, the 8.5gs dennis and don pulled and sustained sounded pretty level as they were already at low altitudes and using tons of fuel to pull that stunt.

Here's the thing you don't understand.

The tomcat and the su-27 are very complementary planes. One has slightly less wing area and fixed 42-degree swept wings, while the other has more wing area, but also weighs 4,000 pounds more and has Variable Geometry wings. They both have a flat pancake fuselage/wide nacelle configuration, swept back wings and on the su-27 that mimics the tomcat somewhat as the ailerons and flaps are also angled back further than the f-15 eagles. The funny thing is, the su-27 has 20,000 lbs of fuel maximum and for all that extra fuel it kinda shows as it's about 7 feet longer than the tomcat without those nose probes on either plane, which causes more normal drag in turning. Yet the flanker, with it's very large wing area yet good wing loading can pull and sustain 9gs (with lower than 20,000 lbs of fuel of course) at some speed and at some altitude and sustain that speed and altitude as well. So exactly what is it about you and your hatred of the f-14 tomcat that make you feel that it can't do the same thing, when it has the same basic design of the f-14 flanker? What makes you believe that the tomcat couldn't sustain 9gs with enough thrust to weight ratio without losing speed or altitude? Again, I don't care what speed and altitude the tomcat is limited to sutaining those 9gs WITHOUT losing said speed (whatever speed the f-14 needs) and altitude (whatever altitude the f-14 needs). Why do you believe it's impossible when it's so similar to the flanker in shape, design and size AND aerodynamics?

We already know the plane can sustain High 7.5gs from mach 2 downward to 1. That's with quite a high wing loading, almost as high as the f-16, but when the wings are forward you have lower wing loading, what makes you think it can't sustain higher than that? Well dennis romano said they burned the plane down to 4,500 lbs and they sustained that 8.5gs at 40 degrees of wing sweep and accelerated. At the very LEAST structurally the plane can handle 8.5gs and sustain them. And remember, you cannot turn that tight instantaneously if you couldn't STRUCTURALLY WITHSTAND IT. That means you can sustain those Gs as well.

And btw,The f-35A cannot turn instantaneously 9gs, i gaurantee it. There is no plane that creates some bullshit "vortex bubble" that would protect a plane's structure when pulling instant Gs vs pulling sustained Gs. The wind will hit it just the same. It's just a matter of aerodynamics and thrust. You certainly dont' have good aerodynamics on the f-35 but you also don't have enough wing area to even instantaneously turn 9gs. It has less titanium percentage by WEIGHT than the f-22 raptor does, yet weighs 75% of the weight of the raptor lol. You're not turning 9gs with that high of a wing loading. It's well over 100. Not even the f-4 phantom can turn 9gs and that has acceptable wing loading for a gen 3 fighter.

But of course. You still think the tomcat can't sustain the SPEED AND ALTITUDE at which to turn 9+gs. I already compared it to the flanker. They are basically the same basic design, except one has VG wings, and one has fixed wings. Exactly why is it that at some slow speed, and remember dennis and don apparently pulled those 8.5gs and accelerated to 400 knots which is not a super fast cruising speed, but what makes you think that tomcat can't sustain 9gs and also sustain speed and altitude like the flanker can? Even if you hate it so much that you have to say "well maybe it can sustain 9gs at some speed but it would be SLOWER THAN THE RAPTOR!", Ok fine, so bet it.

At least accept that

1)f-14 tomcat is a seriously strong plane and has a high sustained G tolerance (even if you don't believe it can sustain SPEED AND ALTITUDE)

2)the f-14 tomcat and flanker are very similar planes, with the flanker being quite noticeably larger than the f-14 in many ways, yet the flanker can sustain 9gs AND SUSTAIN the speed and altitude.

c)accelerating doesn't neccesary mean it a sustain turn, since an aircraft can make an instantaneous turn while nose down aka , it can trade alot of potential energy for small amount of kinematic energy. A version of this is the down spiral turn


I said sustained Gs. Not speed or altitude. Although I admit I should have clarified that. I was having too much fun.

Nonetheless, I feel that I have summed up the rest of your post, which is basically, rubbish.

I will add one more thing though.

The government and the military will lie to you. Yes you read that right. I said....

YOUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY WILL LIE TO YOU. So you know what that means? Your charts really mean nothing. You have to prove the data logically, and I have yet to see any actual proof of why the f-14 couldn't sustain speed and altitude while pulling 9gs. Just stupid numbers on a chart that looks pretty much identical to the f-14A charts.

Certainly, my whole argument from the get go was that this plane, the f-14 should have NEVER been cancelled and it only was due to greedy and corrupt hostile opposition from other companies and the money those companies gave to people like Dick Cheney and his henchman at the department of defense and of course the usuals, congress, presidents, etc.

YOUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY WILL LIE TO YOU. And that's exactly what they did with this plane. They tried since the 70s to thwart production. The Iranian purchase of 80 f-14s saved Grumman from bankruptcy This is what you can't understand. The f-14 program was subject to continued down sizing, including the cutting of test funding, multiple control systems and softwares, and it was scruitinized every day until it's eventual retirement in 2006, not too long after the Aim-54 phoenix platform, which some ships apparently were supposed to be equipped with ON DECK (not just on an f-14) to shoot incoming aircraft. was CANCELLED. There was never any credit given to the plane because of all the lockheed martin BRIBE money thrown around secretly to help defund the f-14 and grumman corp.

The main reason the f-14 was so bashed by the government and lockheed and other companies was because the f-14 could effectively intercept an SR-71 blackbird with it's phoenix missiles, which Iran had at the time with their f-14s. Of course this also is tied to the iranian revolution, in which US backed terrorists took over Iran and ousted the Shah.

You know that's the reason the mig-25 which we all know could ALSO potentially intercept an SR-71 blackbird stopped flying over Iran during the soviet days. It's because the f-14 could intercept the mig-25 effectively with it's phoenix missiles. Of course, after word of the mig-25 got out, we stopped flying sr-71 over Soviet territory.

But that's not all. The f-14D had an effective IRST system developed by general electric. This obviously could have threatened sales of the f-22 raptor. The tomcat was retired a year after the deployment of the f-22 raptor, and guess who now owns GE's AN/AAS-42 IRST found on the retired F-14D tomcat? Lockheed Martin. They now call it "IRST-21". Funny though, seeing as the next version of tomcats was the ST-21 variant that was never built.

Oh and btw, the f-16A has a lower wing loading than the f-15C. Still pretty high, however. Then again, it's not much bigger than the mig-21 yet it's several thousand LBS heavier. That's because it's frame is stronger than the mig-21's. For High G maneuvers. This is why the mig-21 is limited to 7g. It's an old plane not designed for higher than 7gs. Period.

Aside from all of this and going off topic, I believe my final answer to this thread will be that the F-14D and F-15E are very similar planes, both dogfight and strike capable. I think the f-14 has the strike mission nailed down, the f-15E is just more simple to maintain and in a dogfight would consume a bit less fuel due to it being lighter than the F-14D. In the end, it would depend on the pilot on who would win in a dogfight, but as a strike platform that depends on range, which the tomcat has, due to VG wings and low drag installations under the fuselage.[/quote]


Congrats on going full retard. Not only is a bunch of the above hearsay, conjecture, conspiracy theory, and in some cases outright lie, it's also hilariously nutty and trying to connect coincidence with fact.

So not the US government is lying and can't be believed to conspire against the mighty F-14? To what end? So you can win an argument on the internet decades later?

How do we know the government isn't lying about the tomcat from the start and it can't break mach 1 or turn beyond 5 G? Explain.

Did you know the f-4 has lower wing loading than the f-16? Yet the f-16 is the better turner by far. Can you explain that? Almost like wing loading isn't the be all end all you think. But you also can't separate facts from emotion anyway which is the signature of children

I literally LOLed at the IRST 21/f-22 conspiracy lol dumb dumb dumb. That's the lamest conspiracy I've ever heard. You can. Do better than that you fraud.

I really thought this was a troll, but the key to trolling is using a few select words to get people to go with walls of text. Since he is replying with walls of text

Eagerly waiting to see tomcats performing like f-22s post footage

Also you havn't won sh*t. I'm a Tomcat fan and you are full of it. Not even people in your own camp are on your side.

You lose. And not gracefully

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 15:45
by XanderCrews
It is clear I have won this debate to anyone actually interested in the F-14 tomcat and it's capabilities. I now claim victory and I said before, this is my last post.


Fist yourself. You didn't convince a single person not even tomcat fans


YOUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY WILL LIE TO YOU.


So we dont have to believe any positive thing they have ever said about the godawful tomcat? The plane that lost a quarter of the fleet to engine failures? That spent it's whole career playing catch up? That was seemingly never ready until the day it was retired?

I'm a Tomcat fan but it's not a perfect airplane. Not by a long shot. It had issues. It killed a lot of its own pilots. It was safety nightmare and not surprisingly when the cold war threat ended so did the tomcat.

If it's all an "LM conspiracy" What LM aircraft replaced the Tomcat? How did LMs conspiracy contribute to the MCDONALD DOUGLAS and later Boeing aircraft that defeated and even replaced it?

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2017, 16:33
by hythelday
This thread was a train wreck.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2017, 23:30
by eloise
gbigly wrote: The fact remains is you can't prove me wrong, and I can't actually prove you wrong in any other way than logically with some facts

You are like a 5 years old kid that can't admit that he is wrong

gbigly wrote:I believe that I have done all i need to do in this thread. Any honest aviation lover even remotely interested in the f-14 tomcat and why it was actually cancelled and what it's capability is... will see my posts and see yours, and see how you have consistently lied and provided factually bogus information in order to further whatever agenda you have here. They will see with all the crap I had to put up with and how in the end I really just look like a matyr going up against a cabal of bloodthirsty mob savages with pitchforks and torches. Therefore the readers will be able to properly navigate through all of the bullshit that this forum and it's biased moderators spew. And that leaves me with a feeling of satisfaction.

It is clear I have won this debate to anyone actually interested in the F-14 tomcat and it's capabilities. I now claim victory and I said before, this is my last post.

There is no better opportunities for this photo
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2017, 23:34
by count_to_10
eloise wrote:There is no better opportunities for this photo
Image

Absolutely.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2017, 01:22
by XanderCrews
The f-14D had an effective IRST system developed by general electric. This obviously could have threatened sales of the f-22 raptor. The tomcat was retired a year after the deployment of the f-22 raptor, and guess who now owns GE's AN/AAS-42 IRST found on the retired F-14D tomcat? Lockheed Martin. They now call it "IRST-21". Funny though, seeing as the next version of tomcats was the ST-21 variant that was never built.


This was still the crown jewel of stupid. And thats really saying something.

AAS-42. 42 like Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy. Half of 42 is 21. IRST 21. The LM CFO's daughter is married to a guy who is 21 -- his favorite book is Dune. the massive government conspiracy is obvious.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2017, 01:44
by XanderCrews
Image

Looking at all that conspiracy. 141 losses from 1970 to 1999.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2017, 13:43
by mixelflick
Head hurts reading all this.

For my money, F-15C wins vs. F-14A. F-15C vs. F-14D is a toss up. In either event, neither plane nor pilot would have fought so viciously as the two posters in this thread :)

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2017, 17:27
by collimatrix
This is why it's so important to remember to take your medication.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 14:51
by rnvalencia
f-16adf wrote:Seriously, now you are posting just absolute lies.


NO F-14 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

NO F-15 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

NO F-18 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

MOST F-16'S CANNOT OUT TURN A SU-27.




The Baseline Flanker has lower wing loading than any Tomcat.



Here is a SU-27 performing a full 360 degree turn, turn begins at 4:25,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=290&v=4B00eSuLq0Q

That is basically 15 seconds or slightly less for the full turn.




Draken superstall is not a Pugachev's Cobra.


Do you have SU-27's NATOPS equivalent diagram?

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 16:19
by f-16adf
Yes, I do.


And I didn't realize the Anatoly Kwotschur (Kvotchur) Su-27 was "lightened" substantially as compared to the baseline Su-27.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 17:23
by rheonomic
f-16adf wrote:NOBODY HERE HATES THE TOMCAT.


I do! I do!

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 17:29
by botsing
rheonomic wrote:
f-16adf wrote:NOBODY HERE HATES THE TOMCAT.


I do! I do!




Nah, I don't believe you. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 23:22
by marsavian
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 04:45
by firebase99
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."

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 14:42
by mixelflick
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...

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 19:10
by count_to_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.

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2019, 01:48
by crosshairs
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2019, 13:51
by mixelflick
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 00:15
by Tiger05
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 01:57
by crosshairs
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 02:51
by madrat
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

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 07:54
by zero-one
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 12:41
by madrat
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 14:18
by mixelflick
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...

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 15:09
by f-16adf
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 00:28
by madrat
I'm pretty sure a Super Hornet with excess thrust would turn legendary F-14 maneuvering into an outdated iconic myth from the past.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 05:28
by hkultala
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 07:14
by zero-one
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 07:16
by zero-one
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 14:21
by mixelflick
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...

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 14:35
by f-16adf
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).

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 14:59
by f-16adf
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 15:10
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 15:20
by f-16adf
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 16:26
by disconnectedradical
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 16:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one, you may want to go through this thread...

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=52948

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 18:24
by zero-one
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/

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 19:01
by disconnectedradical
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 19:52
by sferrin
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 20:09
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 21:50
by sferrin
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 22:01
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sferrin wrote: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.

And I never said any of that was the case. All I'm saying is that when talking about using an engine it makes more sense to talk about the actual rated value, not a test value that was not representative of what the engine was going to be shipped at.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 23:04
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sferrin wrote: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.

And I never said any of that was the case. All I'm saying is that when talking about using an engine it makes more sense to talk about the actual rated value, not a test value that was not representative of what the engine was going to be shipped at.


Thing is we don't know what it would have shipped at. All it said was "improved -129". :shrug: Also read they kicked around the idea of F119s.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 23:53
by f119doctor
Regarding GE-132 and PW-232 demonstrating 37K thrust, and the F135 (and F136) demonstrating 50K thrust:

All jet engines have limits - rotor speed limits, compressor discharge temperature and pressure limits, turbine temperature limits. As the engine inlet temperature increases, you have to increase rotor speeds and temperatures to maintain airflow and thrust, and at some point you reach the limits set for that engine. And as you increase one of these limits, the next one is right behind preventing further increases in speed and temperature. As the inlet temperature increases past that point (known as the Theta break), the speeds and temps cannot increase further and the thrust decreases with additional inlet temperature. As inlet temperatures decrease below the Theta break, rotor speeds and temperatures decrease while maintaining airflow and thrust constant.

Most engines are rated at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP) - 59F inlet temp, sea level inlet pressure of 14.7 psia, no bleed, no horsepower extraction, test cell bellmouth inlet. Thrust stays relatively constant below that inlet temperature, with thrust decreasing above that inlet temp. Some engines are flat rated to higher inlet temperatures such as 90F or 100F to continue delivering their full rated performance to the temperatures.

To demonstrate higher thrust levels, most likely both manufacturers waited until they had a nice cold winter morning where they had large rotor speed and temperature margins, and then turned up the wick to run hotter and faster up to their standard day limits. All this demonstrates is that engine has the aerodynamic capacity for the additional airflow needed for the demonstrated thrust. There is a long development path to go before the engine can run hot and fast enough to generate that increased airflow under standard day or hotter inlet conditions.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 00:56
by sferrin
I'd heard of -229s reaching 31k regularly- in cold weather. (It's also why they flew the Streak Eagle flights in North Dakota when it was nice and cold.)

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 07:31
by zero-one
Old article, but still a good read.
https://theaviationist.com/2012/11/21/tomcat-vs-hornet/

If the mission is strictly fleet defense, the F-14 was a perfect platform. In fact, the six wing mounted pylons of the Super Hornet (or the four of the Hornet) impose a higher drag on the F/A-18 that couldn’t match the Tomcat performance as a very high speed interceptor.

Indeed, the Tomcat is known to be a very fast airplane, with great sustained energy performance and, since it carried a great quantity of fuel which gave it a good endurance, the F-14 was also very good for high speed strike missions.

But the Cold War ended a couple of decades ago and “its” Bears bombers are no the threat that led to the Tomcat possessing those attributes in first place. Furthermore, while the F-14 was an older aircraft in which some newer technologies were integrated, the F/A-18 Super Hornet is a more modern airplane with newer equipment, easier to maintain: a great advantage in times of budget constraints.

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.



In FAC(A) Forward Air Controller (Airborne) mission both aircrafts have some strengths and weaknesses: while the Tomcat had a greater on-station time than the Super Hornet, the F/A-18 has an integrated cockpit and for air-to ground missions has the capability to carry not only Laser Guided Bombs (LGBs) and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), but also High Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) and Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOWs) which the F-14 could not carry. Still, the F-14 could carry a reconnaissance pod whereas the F-18 can fly as a buddy refueler.

Anyway, thanks to its eleven weapon stations, the Super Hornet is more flexible than the Tomcat and it can carry a larger array of air-to-ground ordnance.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 13:09
by sferrin
Well I for one am glad to hear things like Bears, Backfires, and Blackjacks are no longer a threat.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 14:03
by zero-one
sferrin wrote:Well I for one am glad to hear things like Bears, Backfires, and Blackjacks are no longer a threat.

Probably what he means is that the capability of the Aegis defense shield has largely relegated the threats imposed by those assets as irrelevant.

Well even if thats not what he meant, I think the need for a very high speed interceptor for the Carrier Strike Group is no longer a priority since the defensive capabilities offered by the Aeigis system is far superior than what the F-14 could ever offer.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 14:20
by mixelflick
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.

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


Please

I made a very factual argument as to why ST21 was a far better choice than the SH. In virtually every meaningful metric, the ST-21 trounces any version of the SH. It had MUCH greater reach/legs, it was a LOT faster, the radar and sensors would have been a lot more capable, and its air to air weapons would have been as good or better than any SH. Hell in this very thread, you have a SH pilot saying how the aircraft is "severely under-powered". ST-21 would have been so powerful and fast that it could engage/disengage a SH at will. It was far and away the most capable platform at the time it was proposed. Find me ANY version of the F-18 (real or imagined) that even comes close. You won't, because it doesn't..

You want to see "fanboys"? Spend any amount of time in the F-35 section and watch how any mention of the F-35 being inferior to any other aircraft (in ANY way) is struck down. More than a few people here throw temper tantrums whenever ANYTHING is said about the F-35 that isn't glowing testimony to its all encompassing awesomeness.

That's fanboyism.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 14:35
by botsing
mixelflick wrote:I made a very factual argument as to why ST21 was a far better choice than the SH.

A factual argument about a paper plane? :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 15:36
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote: It had MUCH greater reach/legs, it was a LOT faster, the radar and sensors would have been a lot more capable, and its air to air weapons would have been as good or better than any SH. Hell in this very thread, you have a SH pilot saying how the aircraft is "severely under-powered". ST-21 would have been so powerful and fast that it could engage/disengage a SH at will. It was far and away the most capable platform at the time it was proposed. Find me ANY version of the F-18 (real or imagined) that even comes close. You won't, because it doesn't..


This got me curious on the ultimate F/A-18 (Advanced Super Hornet) against the ultimate F-14,(ST-21).

The ASH would have been equipped with GE-F414 EPE rated at a whopping 26,000 lbs of thrust, less parasitic drag due to CFTs and detachable weapons bay. The ASH would have RCS levels very close to 5th gen aircraft, Boeing was even selling as a 5th gen alternative.
Thats a pretty big advantage.

But in their real life ultimate forms, F-14D and F/A-18E block 3, everyone who got involved with the 2 planes seem to have the exact same statement.
The F-14 was the better interceptor but the Hornet was the superior fighter and multirole strike platform.

The F-35C's capabilities are an improvement of what the Super-hornet could already do, its a much better fighter and far far superior strike platform.

So that tells me that the emphasis of the navy is to have better fighters and better strike aircraft not to have better interceptors.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 02:23
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote: It had MUCH greater reach/legs, it was a LOT faster, the radar and sensors would have been a lot more capable, and its air to air weapons would have been as good or better than any SH. Hell in this very thread, you have a SH pilot saying how the aircraft is "severely under-powered". ST-21 would have been so powerful and fast that it could engage/disengage a SH at will. It was far and away the most capable platform at the time it was proposed. Find me ANY version of the F-18 (real or imagined) that even comes close. You won't, because it doesn't..


This got me curious on the ultimate F/A-18 (Advanced Super Hornet) against the ultimate F-14,(ST-21).

The ASH would have been equipped with GE-F414 EPE rated at a whopping 26,000 lbs of thrust, less parasitic drag due to CFTs and detachable weapons bay. The ASH would have RCS levels very close to 5th gen aircraft, Boeing was even selling as a 5th gen alternative.
Thats a pretty big advantage.

But in their real life ultimate forms, F-14D and F/A-18E block 3, everyone who got involved with the 2 planes seem to have the exact same statement.
The F-14 was the better interceptor but the Hornet was the superior fighter and multirole strike platform.

The F-35C's capabilities are an improvement of what the Super-hornet could already do, its a much better fighter and far far superior strike platform.

So that tells me that the emphasis of the navy is to have better fighters and better strike aircraft not to have better interceptors.


The bug a superior fighter, no. Incorrect. The bug a better strike platform? Incorrect.

I remember like yesterday when a single tomcat took out 2 F-15s. 2 super bugs against 2 eagles would end with 2 dead bugs.

Tomcat had higher bring back weights over the super bug in strike role. Oh how I would loathe flying a super bug loaded up with gas and bombs. Tomcat was pretty much par for the course a regular tomcat like it was meant to carry bombs and shrug it off like no big deal.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 06:25
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:
The bug a superior fighter, no. Incorrect. The bug a better strike platform? Incorrect.

I remember like yesterday when a single tomcat took out 2 F-15s. 2 super bugs against 2 eagles would end with 2 dead bugs.

Well heres a super bug killing a Raptor. I love Topgun too, but saying the Tomcat is a better fighter. I just don't see it,
In the performace comparison by Sprts (cant' post the photo) the Super Bug was clearly superior at Fl200 Mach .08,
Corner velocity is a closer fight, but I'd still give the Shornet a slight edge.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: The turn performance at 0.8M and FL200 heavily favors the
F/A-18E but things mostly even out once both aircraft are at
their corner velocities with the Super Hornet still holding a
small edge in turn rate. Important to note however is the
difference in G-limits.



Then when you realize that only one of them has JHMCS, 9x and AMRAAMs then it becomes no contest, the Phoenix, Sparrow and 9M combos won't do.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 13:40
by mixelflick
botsing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I made a very factual argument as to why ST21 was a far better choice than the SH.

A factual argument about a paper plane? :roll:


Absolutely.

When it came time for the SH to be "bought", Congress bought the line that it was a simple upgrade of an existing aircraft hook, line and sinker. In much the same way, Grumman could have made the same argument for the ST-21. Computer based CAD, wind tunnel tests and other metrics gave Grumman a very good idea of what it could do. When you hear very precise figures like mach 1.3 supercruise, they're basing that on specific tests/modeling. And on virtually all prototype flights where these tools were used, what do you hear? "It flies just like the simulator...".

Witness the testimony here of a single Tomcat (and for all we know, that could have been a TF-30 powered bird) taking out not one, but TWO F-15's. It's also taken out Foxbats, something no F-18 could even hope to catch, let alone down. IMO, there is strong evidence the F-14 is the superior air to air machine.And judging by the success the F-14 Bombcat had, probably the superior air to ground machine as well.

Concerning air to air loadouts: Even IF the F-14 was fitted with only Phoenix and AIM-9M's, it would have still given AMRAAM/9x Hornets fits. Because even IF the Phoenix misses, it still reaches its target a LOT faster than an AMRAAM, complicating the Hornet driver's job of counter-attacking. The ST-21 undoubtedly would have used AMRAAM's/9x though, and then we're back to all the ST-21's strengths. It'll likely detect the SH first (bigger radar), engage it at much greater range (due to mach 1.3 super-cruise/flying at much higher altitude), shoot first and kill first. With the 9x, there goes the SH's much vaunted nose pointing capability. Or, the ST-21 can simply choose not to engage, since it's fast enough to dictate the terms. There's just no plausible scenario where the SH is superior, unless you consider the fact "it's a great tanker", as one SH pilot said to me, after I asked him to describe its best attribute.

Now if you argue the SH was cheaper, OK. That actually makes perfect sense. You're spending less money, which buys you (far) less capability. Carries more weapons? OK, but that's simply a question of qualifying said weapons on the platform. The ST-21 could have just as easily carried as many, carry them a LOT farther and bring back more of them to the boat.

Remember, at the point in time both were being considered, the SH wasn't a "real" aircraft either. It was a "paper" airplane too. The difference is that Congress was hoodwinked into thinking it was a simple legacy Hornet upgrade. You have to hand it to McDonnell Douglas/Boeing though, they really suckered everyone. The country got 2nd best, and to this day the SH does NOT enjoy decided advantages over late model Flankers, Rafale's, Typhoons,J-10B's/C's and is decidedly inferior to the J-20. Which really sucks, because when trouble kicks off it's usually carrier aircraft that'll be called upon. And only pilot training (may) save them..

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 13:46
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote: It had MUCH greater reach/legs, it was a LOT faster, the radar and sensors would have been a lot more capable, and its air to air weapons would have been as good or better than any SH. Hell in this very thread, you have a SH pilot saying how the aircraft is "severely under-powered". ST-21 would have been so powerful and fast that it could engage/disengage a SH at will. It was far and away the most capable platform at the time it was proposed. Find me ANY version of the F-18 (real or imagined) that even comes close. You won't, because it doesn't..


This got me curious on the ultimate F/A-18 (Advanced Super Hornet) against the ultimate F-14,(ST-21).

The ASH would have been equipped with GE-F414 EPE rated at a whopping 26,000 lbs of thrust, less parasitic drag due to CFTs and detachable weapons bay. The ASH would have RCS levels very close to 5th gen aircraft, Boeing was even selling as a 5th gen alternative.
Thats a pretty big advantage.

But in their real life ultimate forms, F-14D and F/A-18E block 3, everyone who got involved with the 2 planes seem to have the exact same statement.
The F-14 was the better interceptor but the Hornet was the superior fighter and multirole strike platform.

The F-35C's capabilities are an improvement of what the Super-hornet could already do, its a much better fighter and far far superior strike platform.

So that tells me that the emphasis of the navy is to have better fighters and better strike aircraft not to have better interceptors.


New Tomcats would not have had phoenix. They would have had hobs and helmet mounted cueing. They would also have 9x. And AESA / amraam.

Obviously we are not comparing a 1975 Tomcat to a 2015 Sbug.

Its crazy-talk to talk about Sbugs somehow magically being better than what we have had with new build tomcats.

Like I said, single tomcat defeated 2 f-15s. Anyone can be beaten on any day, but for a single fighter to ever defeat 2? With the old TF30 junks. Anyone familiar with ACM knows how incredibly difficult that is. We're not talking about a tomcat defeating 2 skyhawks.

Obviously in a forced situation a2a manuvering fight like when the bug "shot down" the raptor, anyone can get shot by anyone. That tells me exactly nothing. Clint Eastwoods Firefox could lose in that forced scenario.

Tomcat defeats F-15s (2 f-15 vs 1 f-14). F-15's defeat sbugs. If you want to differ with me on eagles being better than bugs, then, I can't help you. Therefore Tomcats (new ones) would dominate over the new bugs.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 14:22
by f-16adf
As far as which jet is better than which jet, F-14D vs SH. Like I said, I defer to the French Navy testimony (one must remember the Marine Rafale pilots were technically the least experienced on their respective jets, since they just recently converted from Crusaders and Super Etendards the prior year, while the F-14D, F-18C pilots had the most time/experience on their jets).

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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 15:43
by mixelflick
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...

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 17:00
by zero-one
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 23:03
by madrat
$100 million for SH, but no way is ASH a poor man's anything...

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 01:58
by crosshairs
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 02:18
by wrightwing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 09:21
by zero-one
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 09:32
by garrya
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

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 12:51
by f-16adf
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 12:58
by sferrin
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).

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 13:36
by madrat
There is no EPE simply because nobody wants to pay the bill. ;)

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 14:36
by sferrin
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 16:03
by mixelflick
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..

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 16:46
by marsavian
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 18:10
by madrat
Yes, there is something preventing it. Tooling and documentation was scuttled under Rumsfeld.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 18:33
by SpudmanWP
There is no "modernizing" an F-14 as a VLO platform. It would have to be designed from the ground up as such.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 19:07
by wrightwing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 13:13
by mixelflick
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...

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 14:21
by sferrin
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 15:00
by botsing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 15:57
by sferrin
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?

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 16:23
by botsing
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 17:57
by f-16adf
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-

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 19:07
by marsavian
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 19:21
by f-16adf
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 00:03
by wrightwing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 10:52
by zero-one
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 13:43
by mixelflick
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 17:28
by zero-one
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 21:42
by wrightwing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 10:00
by zero-one
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?

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 12:27
by mixelflick
Nobody claimed the ST-21 would approach the F-22 in supermaneuverability. But to give you an idea of how maneuverable it would have been, how about a 77 degree AOA without thrust vectoring? How does that compare with AOA on ANY SH, ASH variation you can put up?

Then we get to ludicrous assumptions. Like the claim it would "carry EFT's, like all the other F-14's". Ridiculous. It had a HUGE internal fuel volume, plus more efficient engines. The ASH needs CFT's to achieve an even lesser range, and CFT's are really EFT's, just with a lower drag index. And they can't be punched off the jet. The ST-21 also had a meaningful, low drag air to air (and even air to ground) loadout vs. the ASH. How many AMRAAM's could the ASH carry in the tiny "stealth" weapons pod? How many 2,000lb bombs, while still carrying AAM's for self defense? How many of the weapons carried by the SH today could the ASH carry, and maintain this "Low, low... maybe VLO!" RCS ASH fans speak of?

Good luck with that..

I'll concede the ST-21 would have had a bigger RCS. But the ASH does not take stealth to the same level that an F-22 or F-35 does, either. It will still be seen, just later vs. the ST-21. So can it get closer? Sure. But it can't get so close that they can't see/hit it. It can't even stand off from a greater range and fire long range air to surface cruise missiles, because they won't fit in that tiny weapons pod. And since it can't impart launch energy because of inferior speed/altitude vs. the ST-21, that option is off the table too. You COULD carry some long range weapons externally, but then you're back to a big RCS and hamstrung by much lesser speed. Which means your ingress/egress is going to have you exposed to a far longer period of time. The ST-21 shrinks that window considerably, and can engage/disengage most enemy fighters at will.

An ASH that's seen by a J-10C will be an ASH that's caught/probably killed by a J-10C. But a ST-21? Not likely, as its considerably faster and can keep that speed up for a far longer time period than any ASH.

Finally, the ST-21 would super-cruise easily with 4 AMRAAM's in the tunnel. There is NO version of the SH that can super-cruise, real or imagined. It's a draggy airframe, with low wing sweep that makes it a pig, especially with external stores.
And there is no lipstick you can put on that pig. to claim otherwise.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 13:40
by hornetfinn
I'd say that the bigger fighter aircraft usually tend to be more capable and have higher performance figures than smaller ones. Just take F-15 as basis for example and upgrade it with all the technology available and it will be far superior to any existing or proposed F-16 model. This is when compared one on one. When compared how much combat capability you get with X billion dollars, it seems like more often it's the smaller (and usually significantly cheaper to buy and operate) fighter that is favoured.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 14:01
by f-16adf
That's a pretty good article on the F-14. But part of the problem is that it's from an Air Force perspective. In this case an F-15 Eagle pilot. So Navy Tomcat guys would of course disagree, saying he's biased because he's a USAF Eagle pilot. And still the debate goes on.......


So concerning ACM between the two it remains: USAF pilots say one thing, Navy pilots say something different. That is why when I compare the two I prefer to use the French Navy 2002 ACM exercises and the Israeli evaluation results. Both of those sources are unbiased. Even QS (being a USMC aviator) said that when he fought the two (even F-14B) he still concluded that the Eagle was a tad better. One jet is better at lower speeds, the other jet is better at higher speeds and in the vertical. Against, an F-15E w/o CFT and w/-229's I'd expect the same results.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 14:05
by zero-one
Well this pig is considered the most maneuverable American 4th gen ever built. It may have the shorter end of the stick in
E-M but certainly has the smallest turn radius and best high AoA of any NATO jet.

DCS puts the F/A-18C as the tightest turner in the game against the F-14D, F-15C and Su-27, which is also backed up by pilots
https://fightersweep.com/4210/dogfighti ... 18-hornet/
I would say the Hornet has arguably the best turn radius of any fourth generation fighter.


The ST-21 may have been predicted to reach 77 degrees without TVC but will that be included in the maneuvering envelope, the original F-14 was also tested to very high AoA, with one even performing what looks like a Cobra maneuver. But that wasn't included in the operational maneuvering envelope. I think one factor is the tail, the ST-21 has straight tails like the F-14A which not very effective at high AoA maneuvering.

The CFTs on the ASH are said to induce 0 wave drag
Open PDF here:
viewtopic.php?t=24482

Lastly the original F-14 also had a HUGE internal fuel tank but was still required to carry EFTs. Why would the ST-21 be any different.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 15:10
by f-16adf
Ahh... DCS is a video game.

I looked at that (grim reapers) chart and their comparisons. It is loaded with errors.

1. The F-14B does not have a 20DPS STR, even at low speeds or SL. If you take the NATOPS F-14B 5,000ft chart, and drop it down to sea level, STR increases from 16.1 to ~18.1DPS. Strip off all the 4 aim-7, 4 aim-9 that adds about another degree. So now we are at about ~19.2. There is no way you are going to gain 2DPS from that load out. Even if you take the 59,695lbs chart and compare it to the 55,620lbs chart (a massive difference of over 4,000lbs) STR only increases by about 1.2-1.3 degrees. 4 Aim-7 and 4 Aim-9 and pylons are only 3,006lbs. So their 20DPS estimate is wrong.

2. They put the F-15C STR at 19DPS at 350-450KTAS. According to the USAF flight manual, F-15C w/-220's at .72-.74M at SL: STR is 20.4DPS for a 37,000lbs jet.

3. How do they know the actual STR of the F-18C, since the flight performance manual remains classified? They don't-
They give the F-18 STR of 22DPS at 420KTAS? I have heard of estimates from 20.5 to around a little over 21DPS all at SL. Certainly never at 420KTAS though. The Hornet is very maneuverable, but that noted greatness is generally at lower speeds. The 420 speed figure seems far off. More importantly, KTAS and KCAS are generally near equal at Sea Level. According to the General Dynamics F-16C company demo (1989), the Block 30 Viper hits 9G at around 375-390KIAS at Sea Level. Hence, you would expect the Hornets's air-speed numbers to be somewhat lower. Probably around 360-365ish because of the lower G.

4. The Mirage 2000's STR seems accurate, but not at 300KTAS. If you look at the 15,000ft chart, the Mirage 2000 has its best STR at .86-.87M. Even dropping down to SL, the 300KTAS number seems incorrect. Again, I believe the entire Mirage 2000 performance manual remains classified.



I could be full of BS, but I doubt it. So ask other people's opinions about it.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 16:55
by zero-one
f-16adf wrote:Ahh... DCS is a video game.


I agree with that, thats why I made sure I backed it up with actual pilot comments.
But I will say DCS is what I consider a close (not exact) representation of actual performance figures.

You will still find inaccuracies here and there, but you know what, you'll also see that in real life. In the fighter pilot pod cast, Hornet pilots talked about how no 2 Hornets flew exactly the same, some birds had a certain characteristic or "attitude" not found in the other.So yes I can forgive them for a few Degrees per second off here and there.
In the end its a game, probably the closest most of us will get to the real thing.

The F/A-18 in their test had the smallest turn radius, even when compared with heavy hitters like the Su-27, F-15, Mig-29 etc. This was perfectly representative of Hornet pilots saying the Bug has the smallest turn radius of any 4th gen.
That was my main take away from the Grim Reaper's test.

Yes there are inaccuracies, but negligible.


By the way, we never got an answer why the Su-27 was limiting itself to 7.5Gs IIRC. was that a CLAWS limiter or something.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 17:02
by f-16adf
The F/A-18A-C is a great jet. For ACM I put the F/A-18 with the F-16. Those two are in a class better than the F-15 or F-14 for BFM. I have been around enough F-16 pilots to tell me that the toughest 4th gen. opponent (teen series) that they faced in simulated dogfights; and they nearly if not always say the Hornet.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 15:23
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:Well this pig is considered the most maneuverable American 4th gen ever built. It may have the shorter end of the stick in
E-M but certainly has the smallest turn radius and best high AoA of any NATO jet.

DCS puts the F/A-18C as the tightest turner in the game against the F-14D, F-15C and Su-27, which is also backed up by pilots
https://fightersweep.com/4210/dogfighti ... 18-hornet/
I would say the Hornet has arguably the best turn radius of any fourth generation fighter.


The ST-21 may have been predicted to reach 77 degrees without TVC but will that be included in the maneuvering envelope, the original F-14 was also tested to very high AoA, with one even performing what looks like a Cobra maneuver. But that wasn't included in the operational maneuvering envelope. I think one factor is the tail, the ST-21 has straight tails like the F-14A which not very effective at high AoA maneuvering.

The CFTs on the ASH are said to induce 0 wave drag
Open PDF here:
viewtopic.php?t=24482

Lastly the original F-14 also had a HUGE internal fuel tank but was still required to carry EFTs. Why would the ST-21 be any different.


You are cherry picking Hornet strengths insofar as turn radius, high AOA etc.. What you fail to mention is that no Hornet (ASH or otherwise) is going to make it to the merge against a ST21. And even if it did, whatever small advantages it holds in turning capability (from a computer game) would be negated by the ST-21 carrying 9x. And LOL at throwing cold water on the ST-21's 77 degree AOA. As if it's not even relevant. It's damn relevant, as are the ST-21 overall performance figures. You may find small parts of the envelope where ASH performs better, but it is soundly trounced in most E-M metrics by ST-21.

And insofar as fuel/range/persistence, one more time: "Additionally, super-cruise combined with its additional internal fuel carriage capacity would have given the Super Tomcat much greater range than it already had..". Those big LERX's would have been full of additional internal fuel, while at the same time contributing to much greater AOA maneuvers. And oh, all of that additional internal fuel giving it MUCH GREATER RANGE would be in addition to 2 new, more efficient engines.

So let's stop with the fallacy ST-21 needs external fuel tanks of any sort. All Hornet models up to the SH absolutely need to carry EFT's though, and whatever range the ASH gets from its CFT's isn't anywhere close to a ST-21 on full internal fuel. Even assuming ASH can equal ST-21 in range (which it can't), the ST-21 covers that same airspace alot faster and more effectively. I'm not cherry picking the ST-21's metrics - there's no need to. Because again, it's by far the better all around performer..

This situation looks even worse for the Hornet when the correct model (SH) is compared to ST-21. It was the Super Tomcat and SH proposed at the same time, not ASH.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 16:58
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote: What you fail to mention is that no Hornet (ASH or otherwise) is going to make it to the merge against a ST21.


Even actual pilots don't discount the possibility of getting to a merge in an F-35 and you'll dismiss it in an F-14???
https://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/
CW Lemoine wrote:There are hundreds of scenarios where an F-35 may find its way to the merge.

Actually, its the ST-21 that has a smaller chance of getting to the merge because the ASH is a STEALTH platform, that was the whole selling point.

Saying the ST-21 will magically beat the ASH at BVR is the same sort of reasoning Flanker fans say the Su-35 will shoot an F-35 or F-22 from long ranges because of some wiz bang IRST or radar.


mixelflick wrote:And even if it did, whatever small advantages it holds in turning capability (from a computer game) would be negated by the ST-21 carrying 9x.

DCS is not just any game. And did you forget the fact that I also backed that up with actual Hornet pilot statements.


mixelflick wrote:And LOL at throwing cold water on the ST-21's 77 degree AOA. As if it's not even relevant. It's damn relevant, as are the ST-21 overall performance figures. You may find small parts of the envelope where ASH performs better, but it is soundly trounced in most E-M metrics by ST-21.


Production Hornets own production Tomcats in ACM.
The article I posted said it
The maneuvering evaluation by Sprts supported it.

It's not really a contest, the F-14's aerodynamic profile is made from late 50s to early 60s aerodynamic sciences with an emphasis on the interceptor role and only secondary emphasis on air combat maneuvering.

The F/A-18's profile on the other hand is from the LWF program whose main goal was to develop the perfect dog fighting machine. With about 10 years worth of aerodynamic advances over the original F-14 design.



mixelflick wrote:Those big LERX's would have been full of additional internal fuel, while at the same time contributing to much greater AOA maneuvers. And oh, all of that additional internal fuel giving it MUCH GREATER RANGE would be in addition to 2 new, more efficient engines.


It doesn't matter, the only reason they would allow it to fly without EFTs is if it was Stealth, but its not, so why bother. And unless the ST-21 can carry as much fuel as an F-14 with 2 EFTs internally, I really don't see Navy brass allowing it to go out without EFTs

mixelflick wrote: All Hornet models up to the SH absolutely need to carry EFT's though,

ASH is supposed to be Stealth, so even if it has the range of an F-5, they still won't allow it to carry EFTs to preserve the Stealth outline

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2019, 12:57
by mixelflick
Where exactly did I claim the F-14 would never make it to the merge and have to dogfight? I said it could do BOTH. I also cited its 77 degree AOA capabilities, which you tried to magically discount with your test vs. operational baloney.

The only world in which the SH/ASH etc is superior to the ST-21 is yours.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2019, 13:24
by madrat
The attractiveness of the F-14 layout was its ability to get slim at high speeds and get wide for maximum lift at lower speeds. I'm not so sure these functions are replaced with modern stealth designs that really accentuate minimal transonic drag. The ST-21 will never have the VLO of the F-35, nor the LO of the F-18E/F. But the NATF designs floated around with swingwings were much more a mix of both. If you gave F-18E/F the F1x0-sized engines you have close enough IMHO. You also separate the weight class of the SH from the F-35B/C's. This would give you F-35B at the low end, F-35C at the mid-range, and enlarged SH at the upper end.

The ST-21 program has been defunct and everything sabotaged to prevent its resurrection, so it would be pointless to re-establish. Sure it would be great in theory, but it is never going to happen. Really, the only way Boeing could conceivably continue in the fighter business in the next twenty years is to establish a hybrid between the F-18 and F-15 families. AND they would have to incorporate internal weapons, wrap around electronic imaging sensors, and built-in targeting pods by default. They won't because it would be a gamble in the tens of billions of dollars. And nothing stops LockMart from supersizing the F-35C to win in a competition.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2019, 13:47
by hornetfinn
mixelflick wrote:The only world in which the SH/ASH etc is superior to the ST-21 is yours.


I have to say that the one world in which SH is superior to ST-21 is real world. Super Hornet is actual operational fighter aircraft whereas ST-21 was just a proposal and not even a prototype was ever made. Sure it was designed as and could've been an awesome machine, but it could've also been a real failure. It was definitely a very ambitious and IMO high-risk proposal. It's very easy to make all kinds of concepts with awesome qualities, but implementing them in real life is a lot harder. While SH might not be as good as ST-21 could've been, it was rather low-risk and low-cost solution with still very good combat capability and excellent reliability/maintainability (AFAIK). IMO, there is a very high chance of ST-21 being much more expensive aircraft to acquire and operate and also having lower reliability and higher maintenance requirements. This might well lead to worse overall combat capability for USN even if ST-21 was individually more capable aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2019, 14:03
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:Wow, now you are REALLY grasping for straws!

Where exactly did I claim the F-14 would never make it to the merge and have to dogfight?


Over here, you said it plain as day.

mixelflick wrote:What you fail to mention is that no Hornet (ASH or otherwise) is going to make it to the merge against a ST21.


mixelflick wrote:The only world in which the SH/ASH etc is superior to the ST-21 is yours.


There are quite a few of us here that think the Super Hornet is superior in most mission scenarios over the F-14.
The F-14 is a better interceptor and long range fleet defender,
I'll give you that. Extreme long range BVR engagements against bombers with cruise missiles is where the Tomcat excels.

But the SHornet is a better air superiority fighter, medium to short range fights against other fighters. better SEAD aircraft, striker (smaller RCS and better sensors),

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2019, 01:11
by madrat
F-18 in every flavor looked like it has been going the route of the F-14's maintenance cost in man hours. One of the justifications for retirement of F-14 was it's cost in raw man hours. The joke is on the USN because all aircraft slide towards a ridiculous comparison with new aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2019, 01:59
by crosshairs
zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Wow, now you are REALLY grasping for straws!

Where exactly did I claim the F-14 would never make it to the merge and have to dogfight?


Over here, you said it plain as day.

mixelflick wrote:What you fail to mention is that no Hornet (ASH or otherwise) is going to make it to the merge against a ST21.



mixelflick wrote:The only world in which the SH/ASH etc is superior to the ST-21 is yours. If by now you're incapable of seeing the truth,


There are quite a few of us here that think the Super Hornet is superior in most mission scenarios over the F-14.
The F-14 is a better interceptor and long range fleet defender,
I'll give you that. Extreme long range BVR engagements against bombers with cruise missiles is where the Tomcat excels.

But the SHornet is a better air superiority fighter, medium to short range fights against other fighters. better SEAD aircraft, striker (smaller RCS and better sensors),

mixelflick wrote:Those regular appointments with your psychiatrist really are important. So is resuming your medications..

O now you're resulting to personal attacks. Thats a good way of getting banned buddy, I wouldn't do that.


New tomcats would have had better sensors. Why does bug crowd want to compare an A, B, or D to the SH? Its like saying if the usaf continued with the eagle that we would be seeing newly built Cs on the flight lines.

Every time I hear someone bring up the SH LO, all I can think is go pour yourself another cup of coolaide. SH, especially with fuel end weapons is about as LO as a billboard. A blind man can see that. It doesn't take a masters degree in physics to see it is not by any stretch of imagination a LO aircraft. It has got congressional stealth and that is all.

Per media outlets the SH has a 10 percent reduction in RCS. It is what, 25 percent than a regular bug which isn't LO. Not hard to do the math. 10 percent from what direction? What frequencies? What about when actually loaded for a real sortie and not an airshow demo? Fuel. Weapons. Lots of draggy reflecting stuff under the wings. I would say as stealthy as any other 4th gen US fighter.

I don't know how anyone can say the SH is a better fighter. Because it has some slow speed nose pointing ability? I am sure that is really useful today with hobs proliferating the air combat community. If the SH isn't fighting other fighters hundreds of miles from the carrier, then the cbg has got some real stinky stuff going on. Thats your short to medium range scenario - bad guys getting to close to the cbg. Seems lime I recall the cbg is protected by aegis. And if the fight is a long way away from the cbg, then the tomcats speed and legs are better than some slow speed nose pointing tricks.

The only reason we have the SH instead of whatever new tomcats would be designated is grumman wasn't the favored son as the 80s wound down. Politics.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2019, 13:46
by mixelflick
Read it and weep (every word): Including quotes/thoughts from sailors to aviators to subject matter experts..

Leading Experts Warn F-18E’s Gross Underperformance Threatens to Cut Carrier Strike Groups’ Area of Influence by 77%; Why the U.S. Navy Urgently Needs Needs a Replacement for the Super Hornet

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... per-hornet

Inn, before you attempt to discredit the author/source..

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2019, 14:27
by f-16adf
The cancellation of the F-14 by Cheney also was influenced by declining defense budgets, because of the end of the Cold War.

For example, the F-15C (fighter version) was last produced in 1986. (most people forget that)
The last of the bulk of F-16CJ's for the USAF were last produced generally up until 1993-94. (most people forget that)

The Tomcat could not drop bombs in 1989 or 1990. It was deemed a single mission jet. It also had ZERO export orders.
Conversely, and which everyone seems to forget, the USMC needed to replace its F-4S Phantoms and A-4M Skyhawks up to early mid 1992. Were they going to do that with fighter mission only F-14's? The answer is NO. The USMC drops bombs and provides CAS for its troops on the ground.

Furthermore, the Hornet had export clients (meaning MONEY), and those orders needed to be fulfilled. In an era of declining defense budgets the Navy was left with one jet (like the USAF with the F-16, circa early 1990's). They simply were not going to choose the single mission F-14 vs the multi-mission Hornet--And dry up the Hornet export line. While telling the USMC to keep flying outdated F-4's and A-4's (because they were never going to get single mission Tomcats). Sorry, but that never was going to happen. Additionally, do you seriously think Bill Clinton was going to increase defense budgets in 1993 and beyond for a fantasy Tomcat, all the while being involved in Somalia, OSW, ONW, Bosnia, Kosovo? ....NOPE

According to Dave "Bio" Baranek: "The first LANTIRN deployment was in 1996 (VF-103) – and with it the F-14 finally became a versatile precision strike-fighter."


I'm willing to bet that If the F-14 didn't become the Bombcat, it would have been retired much sooner than 2006. It was too little, too late. The world political stage was simply different in 1996 vs 1986-

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2019, 22:18
by hkultala
f-16adf wrote:The cancellation of the F-14 by Cheney also was influenced by declining defense budgets, because of the end of the Cold War.

For example, the F-15C (fighter version) was last produced in 1986. (most people forget that)
The last of the bulk of F-16CJ's for the USAF were last produced generally up until 1993-94. (most people forget that)

The Tomcat could not drop bombs in 1989 or 1990. It was deemed a single mission jet. It also had ZERO export orders.
Conversely, and which everyone seems to forget, the USMC needed to replace its F-4S Phantoms and A-4M Skyhawks up to early mid 1992. Were they going to do that with fighter mission only F-14's? The answer is NO. The USMC drops bombs and provides CAS for its troops on the ground.

Furthermore, the Hornet had export clients (meaning MONEY), and those orders needed to be fulfilled. In an era of declining defense budgets the Navy was left with one jet (like the USAF with the F-16, circa early 1990's). They simply were not going to choose the single mission F-14 vs the multi-mission Hornet--And dry up the Hornet export line. While telling the USMC to keep flying outdated F-4's and A-4's (because they were never going to get single mission Tomcats). Sorry, but that never was going to happen.


USMC does not use, has never used, and not planning to use Super Hornet.

USMC is using the F-18C/D.

So the needs of USMC has nothing to do with the development of Super Hornet and cancellation of F-14.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2019, 22:38
by f-16adf
I never said the USMC used the SH. What I said (and read carefully) is that by 1990 the USAF had one fighter jet in production namely the F-16 (which for AF use, CJ production would be basically done by 1994). The single mission F-15C was long gone. Only few SE were around, trickling off the production lines.

If the AF was left with one fighter, do you seriously think the NAVY was going to still keep 2 in production concurrently (namely the F-14D and F/A-18C/D)? While everything at that time was being cut or cancelled. Namely, the A-12, NATF, AAAM, A-6F, Agile Falcon, 700 F-22'S DOWN TO 335, and I believe B-2 numbers were also cut. Even in early 1994, my brother's F-16ADF squadron folded up because of budget cuts.

So left with a choice are you going to keep the older jet (single mission Tomcat), that couldn't drop bombs, needed more maintenance hours, and that had ZERO EXPORT ORDERS in production; Or are you going to choose the jet (F/A-18C/D) that had export orders, was more modern, could drop bombs, and suited the Marine Corps needs for replacing Skyhawks and Phantoms?

Were you even alive during 1990? Do you remember what was happening?? .....The Cold War ended, and the Soviet Union would cease to exist just a few years later.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2019, 11:03
by zero-one
crosshairs wrote:New tomcats would have had better sensors. Why does bug crowd want to compare an A, B, or D to the SH?

We are trying to compare actual F-14Ds with actual F/A-18Es, the D model never had AESA while the SHornet has.
Now if you want to compare it with the ST21 which is supposed to be the ultimate F-14, then I say, compare it with the ASH (Advanced Super Hornet), just to be fair.

ST-21 was to have an improved APG-71, no word if it would be AESA, at least I've never seen it.

crosshairs wrote:Every time I hear someone bring up the SH LO, all I can think is go pour yourself another cup of coolaide.

The SH is not LO, the ASH is.
And even so, you're making it sound like the RCS of an SH is just as bad as the F-14. weapons or no weapons a Bug will always be harder to see than an F-14. Thats useful when used in conjunction with ECM.


crosshairs wrote:I don't know how anyone can say the SH is a better fighter. Because it has some slow speed nose pointing ability? I am sure that is really useful today with hobs proliferating the air combat community.

If this was sarcastic, I'm just going to let F-22, F-35 test pilot Tom Morganfeld answer this for me
Tom Morganfeld wrote:The question was how relevant is maneuverability in the age of high off boresite missiles and helmet mounted cueing systems.

Well I would say these systems can decrease the relevance of maneuverability to a degree, but if you're a fighter you'll still need to be able to turn and point your nose....Its still relevant

F/A-18E vs F-14D
With this in mind, the SHornet has the edge in maneuverability
(see operational performance assessment by Sprst)
and far far superior cockpit visibility.

F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet vs F-14 Super Tomcat 21
The ASH will have:
-more powerful engines,
-no external ordnance except for 1 Stealthy weapons pod on the center line hard point.
-Low observable RCS
(Again they will not put EFTs on it because the whole point of ASH is to be Stealthy)

The ST-21 on the other hand was to have:
-GE-F110 engines
-Redesigned control surfaces and LERX
-Possible inclusion of TVC
-External weapons, ECM pods and EFTs
(I know some of you will say it carries more fuel than a KC-46, but as we have seen with every single NATO aircraft, the only way you will avoid carrying EFTs is if you're Stealthy. If the F-15E with CFTs can't get away from carrying them despite having a buttone of fuel, what makes us think the F-14 ST-21 will


If the F-35C was chopped off, they would have a real case to buy the ASH


crosshairs wrote: Seems lime I recall the cbg is protected by aegis. And if the fight is a long way away from the cbg, then the tomcats speed and legs are better than some slow speed nose pointing tricks.

Exactly, with Aegis protecting the CSG, why do you need the Tomcat? let the Ticcos and Burkes handle the air defense, concentrate on sending your air wing to the fight over enemy controlled air space.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 05:21
by eloise
F-18 E.PNG

F-18 E (b).PNG

F-18 E (c).PNG

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 13:43
by sferrin
zero-one wrote:Exactly, with Aegis protecting the CSG, why do you need the Tomcat?


Well THAT'S a stupid question. The Tomcats operated outside the Aegis bubble, making the defended space much larger. Even the SM-6 won't touch that. Tomcats were design to attack things like Backfire-Cs before they were in launch range of their Kh-22s. SM-6 can't do that as Kh-22 easily outranges it.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 16:05
by mixelflick
The point about the F-18 carrying air to ground weapons was a fair one, but look how easily F-14's were turned into Bombcats. New build F-14's would just as easily been air to ground capable, probably even moreso.

At the end of the day F-14D's (and certainly, ST-21's) would have far superior range to SH's, carrying heavier loads further. And they'd cover that greater ground a lot faster. The bottom line is that Bombcats could do everything a SH could do, and then some. But not the other way around. The one caveat in the SH's favor would have been RCS. Which of course can be addressed by radar jamming. If any Hornet should have been built, it should have been the EA-18G.

With respect to fleet air defense, that's once again a big issue. The F-14D would have had a much superior time on station, carrying far fewer fuel tanks and covering way more airspace. Faster. The ST-21? Forget about it. Way, WAY superior to any Hornet variation (ASH or otherwise). Given its greater internal fuel, I fail to see any need for EFT's. And as stated prior, it would just extend the range/capability of AEGIS/SM6 and let's not forget... you can't intercept/escort TU-22's/TU-95's with SM6's. You need aircraft/airmen to intercept, identify and if necessary prosecute those targets.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Turning a fleet air defense monster into an all arounder is a lot easier than starting with the winner of the LWF competition, then trying to make it all things to all people. The Strike Eagle beat out the F-16XL for the same reasons. The F-14/F-18 dynamic is no different..

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 18:50
by kdub104
mixelflick,

What RCS-reducing steps were there for the ST-21? The engine fan was RIGHT THERE in your face. What was the solution for this? What were the other proposals to reduce its signature?

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 20:35
by basher54321
mixelflick wrote: The Strike Eagle beat out the F-16XL for the same reasons. The F-14/F-18 dynamic is no different..


The F-16XL was vastly different to the F-16A - this letter from Harry Hillaker written 10 years after the event might give some insight into why the F-15E was actually chosen :



As the recognized “Father of the F-16,” and Chief Project Engineer during the concept formulation and preliminary design phases of the F-16XL and Vice President and Deputy Program Director during the prototype phase, the article was of considerable interest to me. The disappointment was that only one side of the issue was presented, a highly biased, self-interest input that does not adequately, nor accurately, present the real story of the selection of the F-15E.


First, it should be understood that we (General Dynamics) did not initiate the F-16XL as a competitor to the F-15E, then identified as the F-15 Strike Eagle. We stated as unequivocally as possible to the Air Force, that the Dual-Role mission should be given to the F-15: that the F-15 should complement the F-16 in ground strike missions in the same manner that the F-16 complements the F-15 in air-air missions. A fundamental tenet of the F-16, from its inception, has been as an air-air complement to the F-15—no radar missile capability, no M=2.0+ capability, no standoff capability: a multi-mission fighter whose primary mission was air-surface with backup air-air capability.


We proposed the F-16XL as a logical enhancement of its air-to-surface capabilities. The F-16C represented a progressive systems enhancement and the XL would be an airframe enhancement optimized more to its air-surface mission—lower weapons carriage drag and minimum dependence on external fuel tanks.

The statement that “a prototype version of the F-15E decisively beat an F-16 variant called the F-16XL,” is misinformation. I don’t know what was meant by “beat,” it is patently true that McDonnell-Douglas clearly won what was called a “competition.” However, by the Air Force’s own definition, it was, in reality, an evaluation to determine which airplane would be better suited to the dual-role mission. In a formal competition, each party is evaluated against a common set of requirements and conditions. Such was not the case for the dual-role fighter. The F-15 Strike Eagle and the F-16XL were evaluated and flight tested to different sets of conditions and to different test plans—no common basis for evaluation existed.



The F-15 had only one clear advantage in the evaluation—a “paper” advantage. The weapon loading for one of the missions used in the evaluation precluded the use of external fuel tanks on the F-16XL; the F-15 could carry that particular weapon loading and still carry external fuel tanks, the F-16XL could not. That one mission was the only place the F-15 had a clear advantage. (It should be noted that a fundamental design feature of the XL was the elimination of external fuel tanks with their attendant restrictions on flight limits and their weight and drag penalty.)

Further, the Air Force would not allow us to use the GE F110 engine in our proposal even though the No. 2 XL, the 2-place version, was powered by a F110 engine and provided better performance than the P&W F100 engine. And although you would expect the F-16’s clear advantage to be cost, the Air Force treated the F-15E as a simple modification to a planned production buy and the F-16XL as a totally new buy. Neither airplane used in the flight test evaluation was a “prototype” of a dual-role fighter. The F-15 was closer systems and cockpit-wise than the F-16XL and the F-16XL was closer, much closer, airframe-wise.

The F-16XLs were designed to, and flew, at their maximum design gross weight of 48,000 pounds, whereas the F-15, more than once, blew its tires while taxiing at 73,000 pounds, well below its maximum design gross weight [which was 81,000 pounds], a condition not demonstrated in the flight test program.

In a meeting that I attended with General Creech, then TAC CINC [Commander-in-Chief], the general stated that either air¬plane was fully satisfactory. When asked why he and his staff only mentioned the F-15 (never the F-16XL) in any dual-role fighter statement or discussion, he gave a reply that was impossible to refute, “We have to do that because the F-16 has a heart and soul of its own and we have to sell the F-15.” I’ll have to admit that I sat mute upon hearing that statement because there was no possible retort.

We had no allusions as to what the outcome of the Dual-role fighter “competition” would be and debated whether to even respond to the request for information. We did submit, knowing full well that it was a lost cause and that to not submit would be an affront to the Air Force who badly needed the appearance of a competition to justify continued procurement of the F-15—they had patently been unable to sell the F-15 Strike Eagle for five years. As is the case with too much in our culture today, the Air Force was more interested in style, in appearances, than in substance.


Even today, I feel that giving the F-15 a precision air-surface capability was proper and badly needed. What continues to disturb me is that the F-16XL had to be a pawn in that decision and had to be so badly denigrated to justify the decision—a selection that could have been made on its own merits.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 14:06
by sferrin
Wait, I thought Pierre Sprey was the "Father of the F-16". :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 15:26
by madrat
The F-16 hardpoints were not as strong as F-15E, so it would have never really been a comparable competition.

Maybe if F-16XL had intakes more like Eurofighter and went twin-F404, you might have seen a push to a uniform airframe between the services.

Speaking of F-16XL, did NASA's wing change improve or worsen the design?

Image

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 15:32
by mixelflick
kdub104 wrote:mixelflick,

What RCS-reducing steps were there for the ST-21? The engine fan was RIGHT THERE in your face. What was the solution for this? What were the other proposals to reduce its signature?


I didn't claim there were steps to reduce the ST-21's RCS, did I?

And I acknowledged the SH/ASH would have a far smaller signature. In practice though, I don't think the SH's RCS reduction is worth much, because it's going to be carrying most everything under its wings. Including big, honking fuel tanks (because its range sucks).

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 15:41
by mixelflick
“We have to do that because the F-16 has a heart and soul of its own and we have to sell the F-15.”

He is saying, what here?

That the F-16 is easy to export and the F-15 isn't? Would seem to me that Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, S. Korea, Singapore and now Quatar feel differently. There's always going to be a market for something with a 104-0 air to air combat record, no?

But maybe that's not what this sentence means. Please elaborate, I'd be interested in learning more..

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 17:36
by kdub104
mixelflick wrote:
kdub104 wrote:mixelflick,

What RCS-reducing steps were there for the ST-21? The engine fan was RIGHT THERE in your face. What was the solution for this? What were the other proposals to reduce its signature?


I didn't claim there were steps to reduce the ST-21's RCS, did I?

And I acknowledged the SH/ASH would have a far smaller signature. In practice though, I don't think the SH's RCS reduction is worth much, because it's going to be carrying most everything under its wings. Including big, honking fuel tanks (because its range sucks).



I didn't claim that you claimed there were steps to reduce the ST-21's RCS.

My questions to you were proposed out of curiosity, not confrontation or challenge. I know little about the ST-21 and am curious about the RCS aspect of the Tomcat proposal. A relocation of the engines to "hide" the fan blades seems to be the only way to reduce the radar signature of the engines, and it appears the SuperCat would not undergo this transformation.

I've watched a DCS video with the F-14B module and the "Grim Reapers" performed a 1200 mile strike sortie with Hornets and Flankers. Sure, it is a video game but the Tomcat was the King of the long range strike in terms of range and speed. A Flanker had to maintain burner at altitude to hang with the Tomcats in formation and struggled to catch up with them after takeoff. It was stated by the team leader he was doubtful of the F-15C with air-to-air loadout and 3 bags of gas could keep up. The Tomcats carried a full loadout of 2 bags, 4 Phoenix, 2 AIM-9, and the rest of the fuselage with numerous MK82s. RTB was M2.2+ @ 55,000ft.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 00:30
by basher54321
madrat wrote:The F-16 hardpoints were not as strong as F-15E, so it would have never really been a comparable competition.

Maybe if F-16XL had intakes more like Eurofighter and went twin-F404, you might have seen a push to a uniform airframe between the services.

Speaking of F-16XL, did NASA's wing change improve or worsen the design?





Not relevant it didn't need to have - the XL was a replacement for the F-16C and wasn't meant to be comparable to the F-15E by design - that was one of the points he mentioned. It does show how good the design was even in its underpowered state.

Obviously he didn't seem too happy it was put into some faux competition to sell the F-15 as an F-111 replacement. He doesn't mention that after selecting the F-15 they were going to put the F-16XL into production anyway.

That wing wasn't meant to improve the XL design but was for supersonic laminar flow experiments primarily for I believe the High Speed Civil Transport. Don't think all the objectives were achieved and looks like they even looked into using the Tu-144 after wards as a follow on.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 01:22
by madrat
IIRC it was limited to most 750 pound bombs when they were simplifying inventory.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 13:30
by mixelflick
kdub104 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
kdub104 wrote:mixelflick,

What RCS-reducing steps were there for the ST-21? The engine fan was RIGHT THERE in your face. What was the solution for this? What were the other proposals to reduce its signature?


I didn't claim there were steps to reduce the ST-21's RCS, did I?

And I acknowledged the SH/ASH would have a far smaller signature. In practice though, I don't think the SH's RCS reduction is worth much, because it's going to be carrying most everything under its wings. Including big, honking fuel tanks (because its range sucks).



I didn't claim that you claimed there were steps to reduce the ST-21's RCS.

My questions to you were proposed out of curiosity, not confrontation or challenge. I know little about the ST-21 and am curious about the RCS aspect of the Tomcat proposal. A relocation of the engines to "hide" the fan blades seems to be the only way to reduce the radar signature of the engines, and it appears the SuperCat would not undergo this transformation.

I've watched a DCS video with the F-14B module and the "Grim Reapers" performed a 1200 mile strike sortie with Hornets and Flankers. Sure, it is a video game but the Tomcat was the King of the long range strike in terms of range and speed. A Flanker had to maintain burner at altitude to hang with the Tomcats in formation and struggled to catch up with them after takeoff. It was stated by the team leader he was doubtful of the F-15C with air-to-air loadout and 3 bags of gas could keep up. The Tomcats carried a full loadout of 2 bags, 4 Phoenix, 2 AIM-9, and the rest of the fuselage with numerous MK82s. RTB was M2.2+ @ 55,000ft.


There was no mention of RCS reduction measures on the ST-21. However, there were on the ASF-14, which could be considered in the same breath as the Advanced Super Hornet. From the below article: "There was even talk that some stealthy characteristics would be applied to the ASF-14, this may have included radar baffles over it engines' fan faces and "edge-alligned" gear doors and access points."

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-g ... 1575814142

There is no doubt that the ST-21 or ASF-14 would have been fearsome machines. Had we chosen to take this path way back when, fleet air defense wouldn't be an issue right now. Nor would our "strike fighters" being short legged slugs. But that was the Navy's choice, and they're going to have to live with it. Either Tomcat would get to its station faster, extend CAP further, stay a lot longer, see much farther and if necessary, impart greater launch energy to its missiles than any Hornet, including the ASH.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 18:08
by zero-one
Okay, I tried a little bit to find this range and fuel capacity improvements the hypothetical ST-21 would have and really couldn't find anything concrete.

The F-14D with GE-F110-400s has a published combat radius of 500 NM. With more fuel the ST-21 will definitely have more, but how much more?

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 20:17
by basher54321
madrat wrote:IIRC it was limited to most 750 pound bombs when they were simplifying inventory.


For AG it had options of 5 x 2000 lb and 16 x 1000lb stations + 2 x LANTIRN stations. During the flight testing the 2 XLs (rebuilt F-16A FSD jets) dropped 18 x 2000 lb MK84 and 218 x 500 lb MK82 - not aware of any other changes.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 00:11
by johnwill
During the test program it also dropped CBUs and launched AGM-65s.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 14:24
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:Okay, I tried a little bit to find this range and fuel capacity improvements the hypothetical ST-21 would have and really couldn't find anything concrete.

The F-14D with GE-F110-400s has a published combat radius of 500 NM. With more fuel the ST-21 will definitely have more, but how much more?


Nothing concrete, but here's what was said, "super-cruise combined with its additional internal fuel carriage capacity would have given the Super Tomcat much greater range than it already had". Not greater range, much greater range. So they were planning on a significant enhancement, and most of that additional internal fuel was to be carried in the enlarged LERX's. Whatever it was, you can bet it would have had a LOT longer legs than the SH or ASH will have. ASH may have CFT's, but those are bolt on solutions to a sub-par internal fuel capability. With the Tomcat (F-14D vs SH), you're talking 16,200lbs vs. 14,000lbs respectively.

In practice, the F-14 could go places/distances the SH simply couldn't - like deep into Afghanistan.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 14:40
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:Okay, I tried a little bit to find this range and fuel capacity improvements the hypothetical ST-21 would have and really couldn't find anything concrete.

The F-14D with GE-F110-400s has a published combat radius of 500 NM. With more fuel the ST-21 will definitely have more, but how much more?


Nothing concrete, but here's what was said, "super-cruise combined with its additional internal fuel carriage capacity would have given the Super Tomcat much greater range than it already had". Not greater range, much greater range. So they were planning on a significant enhancement, and most of that additional internal fuel was to be carried in the enlarged LERX's. Whatever it was, you can bet it would have had a LOT longer legs than the SH or ASH will have. ASH may have CFT's, but those are bolt on solutions to a sub-par internal fuel capability. With the Tomcat (F-14D vs SH), you're talking 16,200lbs vs. 14,000lbs respectively.

In practice, the F-14 could go places/distances the SH simply couldn't - like deep into Afghanistan. The SH's combat radius is listed at just 390 miles for an "interdiction mission". The F-14D's is 500, although too be fair it doesn't say carrying what load. What can be definitively said is again, the F-14 could reach targets the SH simply couldn't. This shouldn't surprise anybody. The SH was an outgrowth of a lightweight fighter. The Bombcat OTOH is a simple modification of a heavy fighter/interceptor. No need to make wholesale changes to enlarge the airframe, no need to laden it with underwing fuel tanks, canted pylons or any of the other aerodynamic sins SH commits.

And what about those EFT's for the F-14? They bring total fuel load now up to 20,000lbs, and if the pilots I spoke to are to be believed they didn't incur much drag, either. You simply can't say that of the big honking EFT's SH has to carry (and again, on canted pylons). So whether it's the F-14D, ST-21 or ASF-14 any variant of the F-14 outperforms any version of the Hornet, Super Hornet or Super Duper you care to compare, in almost every meaningful metric. People are still having a tough time admitting we gave our men 2nd best, but that's exactly what happened in this instance.

It'll be interesting to see if the Navy learns its lesson on the F/A-XX...

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 00:31
by madrat
F-14 with EFT? Link please.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 01:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
EFT, External Fuel Tank, not CFT, Conformal Fuel Tank.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 03:14
by madrat
Oh right. They were under 300 gallons apiece. I'm surprised the USN didn't spec for 330 gallon tanks to match other fighters.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 13:05
by mixelflick
madrat wrote:Oh right. They were under 300 gallons apiece. I'm surprised the USN didn't spec for 330 gallon tanks to match other fighters.


Those tanks were custom made for the F-14, and held around 280lbs (the actual figure is 276). They created little drag, and imposed no maneuvering restrictions - at any speed. Furthermore, they would feed under all conditions. Also, unlike the F-18 (and virtually every other fighter), they didn't take up any weapons stations.

Just one more thing the 'Cat was better at than ahem, "other" airframes..

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 13:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
276gal, not 276lb. A typo, I know, but we don't want anyone to get confused.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 16:21
by sferrin
madrat wrote:Oh right. They were under 300 gallons apiece. I'm surprised the USN didn't spec for 330 gallon tanks to match other fighters.


Probably clearance issues would be my guess.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 16:23
by sferrin
madrat wrote:F-14 with EFT? Link please.


While it didn't go into production they did look at a CFT for a USAF F-14:

ADCOM-F-14.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 16:33
by zero-one
Okay, so the ST-21 will definitely extend the Tomcat's margin over the Hornet on Range and Speed. Attributes that are already in the Tomcat's favor to begin with.

But the Hornets will still have the advantage in Maneuverability and RCS.
I know we've gone back and forth over maneuverability, but the overwhelming amount of information available from pilots and from people here in general point to the SHotnet being better. Its inherently less stable, with larger LEX and with a design originating from the LWF program. It was really meant to be a dog fighter.

With RCS reductions, the SHornet will be harder to kill from very long ranges. The Irbis-E is said to be able to detect a 3 sq meter target 400km away. a Tomcat's RCS is much bigger than that. A combat configured SHornet block 3 isn't the ASH is even smaller.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 17:11
by sprstdlyscottsmn
And honestly there has been a lot of discussion in other threads about the RCS impact of stores, including fuel tanks. In general a heavy air to ground load with EFTs could be a 10m^2 impact. Hornetfinn had a link showing EFT had a 0.1m^2 impact from the front. An AIM-9L with RAM was 0.001, and AIM-9X would be lower. Pylons have RAM, I can see them being as low as 0.05m^2. A TER of Mk82s from the rear (lots of flat fins and corner reflectors) is a combined 1.39m^2, 0.64 for the TER and .25 for each tail on Mk82. Call a head on Mk 82 0.12. Say due to diameter a Mk 84 is 0.48. So we can see how a strike package can have as low of an impact as 3m^2 using modern pylons and reduced RCS weapons. This is why a SH being in the .5 range isn;t worth making better. Your frontal RCS for a strike SHornet will be the same as a beast mode F-35 more or less. An F-15 otoh starts at ~25m, so external load is a comparatively small increase.

And the Irbis-E claim is 350km-400km for a cued search and 50% probability of detection. Using modern western definitions (1m^2, volume search, 75% pd) it drops to ~90nm

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 21:09
by swiss
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:And honestly there has been a lot of discussion in other threads about the RCS impact of stores, including fuel tanks. In general a heavy air to ground load with EFTs could be a 10m^2 impact. Hornetfinn had a link showing EFT had a 0.1m^2 impact from the front. An AIM-9L with RAM was 0.001, and AIM-9X would be lower. Pylons have RAM, I can see them being as low as 0.05m^2. A TER of Mk82s from the rear (lots of flat fins and corner reflectors) is a combined 1.39m^2, 0.64 for the TER and .25 for each tail on Mk82. Call a head on Mk 82 0.12. Say due to diameter a Mk 84 is 0.48. So we can see how a strike package can have as low of an impact as 3m^2 using modern pylons and reduced RCS weapons. This is why a SH being in the .5 range isn;t worth making better. Your frontal RCS for a strike SHornet will be the same as a beast mode F-35 more or less. An F-15 otoh starts at ~25m, so external load is a comparatively small increase.


Fully agree. According this post from Hornetfinn. The mk-82 has a frontal RCS of 0.05 to 0.1 m2.


viewtopic.php?f=33&t=53285&p=387806#wrapper

And for the F-15, Boeing can use this super Ram paint from the Su-35, to reduce the RCS to 2 m2. :wink:


sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:And the Irbis-E claim is 350km-400km for a cued search and 50% probability of detection. Using modern western definitions (1m^2, volume search, 75% pd) it drops to ~90nm


It should be even worse. Volume search for a 3 m2 fighter is 200km. So we talk about roughly 80nm vs a 1 m2 Target. And pd is 90% for western Radars. So it even drops below 80nm.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 14:09
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:Okay, so the ST-21 will definitely extend the Tomcat's margin over the Hornet on Range and Speed. Attributes that are already in the Tomcat's favor to begin with.

But the Hornets will still have the advantage in Maneuverability and RCS.
I know we've gone back and forth over maneuverability, but the overwhelming amount of information available from pilots and from people here in general point to the SHotnet being better. Its inherently less stable, with larger LEX and with a design originating from the LWF program. It was really meant to be a dog fighter.

With RCS reductions, the SHornet will be harder to kill from very long ranges. The Irbis-E is said to be able to detect a 3 sq meter target 400km away. a Tomcat's RCS is much bigger than that. A combat configured SHornet block 3 isn't the ASH is even smaller.


So the Hornet can dogfight better? That's entirely debatable, but why are we talking about dogfighting in 2019? Do that in an F-35 thread, and you'll be crucified. That's so yesteryear, and doesn't matter anymore.

Why should it matter here?

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 16:19
by madrat
The real question is which airframe do you want to take into battle in 2019. Apples and Oranges.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 21:20
by geforcerfx
Watching the thread go to a SH vs Tomcat thread was interesting, I knew who would show up and how they would act and they didn't disappoint.

As others have tried to add to the conversation the super hornet was the best the navy could do in the times that it had to happen, budgets were, and still are falling. The tomcat was expensive, new version were going to be even more expensive, and like pointed out the hornet family was selling well elsewhere. It had a much larger pedigree for multi-role was a simpler aircraft and safer bet at the time. Looking forward the Navy is in the same spot as it was if not worse. Navair isn't going to get a new "Tomcat" big high performance aircraft that's on the front line of technical. The budget isn't there and prob won't be there, F/A-XX will prob just be a upgraded F-35C as long as the airframe proves itself over the next decade. Navy has to buy a lot of very expensive ships over the next 10 years and i think Navair will keep getting the shaft in that budget environment, especially if they keep screwing up on how they are spending that money on the ships.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 01:36
by crosshairs
geforcerfx wrote:Watching the thread go to a SH vs Tomcat thread was interesting, I knew who would show up and how they would act and they didn't disappoint.

As others have tried to add to the conversation the super hornet was the best the navy could do in the times that it had to happen, budgets were, and still are falling. The tomcat was expensive, new version were going to be even more expensive, and like pointed out the hornet family was selling well elsewhere. It had a much larger pedigree for multi-role was a simpler aircraft and safer bet at the time. Looking forward the Navy is in the same spot as it was if not worse. Navair isn't going to get a new "Tomcat" big high performance aircraft that's on the front line of technical. The budget isn't there and prob won't be there, F/A-XX will prob just be a upgraded F-35C as long as the airframe proves itself over the next decade. Navy has to buy a lot of very expensive ships over the next 10 years and i think Navair will keep getting the shaft in that budget environment, especially if they keep screwing up on how they are spending that money on the ships.


That is just plain wrong. Super hornet was an all new aircraft that cost much more to develop than evolving the F-14 the way that the F-15 was evolved (for the rest of the world, just not to include the USAF). From a budgetary perspective the cat would have been a cheaper program. Your opening statement is incorrect. Most of the tooling for new cats was bought and paid for many times over. SH was far from the best Navair could do. A super slow straight wing underpowered slushbucket is pretty much outclassed in any encounter with a sukhoi, hobs or not.

The whole dogfighting debate was quite hilarious as people try to say the SH was a better dogfighter than the new cat would have been. Plane A underpowered and everything hanging on pylons under those straight wings. Plane B much higher T/W and basically a lifting body with that big flat space between engines with at least 4 AAMs semi recessed.

Not to mention as F35 proponents say dogfighting is so very out of fashion.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 06:22
by geforcerfx
crosshairs wrote:
That is just plain wrong. Super hornet was an all new aircraft that cost much more to develop than evolving the F-14 the way that the F-15 was evolved (for the rest of the world, just not to include the USAF). From a budgetary perspective the cat would have been a cheaper program. Your opening statement is incorrect. Most of the tooling for new cats was bought and paid for many times over. SH was far from the best Navair could do. A super slow straight wing underpowered slushbucket is pretty much outclassed in any encounter with a sukhoi, hobs or not.

The whole dogfighting debate was quite hilarious as people try to say the SH was a better dogfighter than the new cat would have been. Plane A underpowered and everything hanging on pylons under those straight wings. Plane B much higher T/W and basically a lifting body with that big flat space between engines with at least 4 AAMs semi recessed.

Not to mention as F35 proponents say dogfighting is so very out of fashion.


The super hornet as proposed was a new airframe with around 30%-40% parts commonality with the legacy hornet and new engines, the block 1 Supers had the same radar, avionics, ejection seats and mission computers as the legacy hornets. Those things can be pretty expensive to develop new and problematic (look at the time and investment made into the F-22's avionics and computers at the time) and that's what the majority of the upgraded tomcat proposals were. At the time cost was king, the super hornet was based off a multi-role platform and was designed to improve the multi-role capability's of the legacy hornet with a better airframe for the strike mission. The idea was the Navy got cheaper aircraft that could do any mission better than a legacy hornet could giving them the chance to knockout 3 or 4 airframe types with 1. F-14's wouldn't do a strike mission until 1995 and wouldn't self designate until 2000-2001 I believe, at the time of the super hornets selection they were only multi-role on paper. The navy wanted a cheap multi-role aircraft and the hornet was in a better position to offer that. Fleet tomcats were costing 50-60 man hours per flight hour hornets were costing 20, the super was expected to maintain or improve the CPFH over the legacy hornets (i believe they did) while being a more capable airframe (which they are). Even if buying the tomcat was $35 million dollars cheaper per plane (which it wasn't) the 2-3 times increase in cost per flight hour would have meant a significantly reduced fleet in numbers (which could cause a even higher rise in cost per flight hour). The Navy still had to buy enough aircraft to field 11 carrier strike groups air wings and the tomcat by itself wasn't going to do that, not to mention they would have had to come up with a different solution for tanking in the carrier air wings, which may not have been a bad thing but would have added more cost and prob would have ended up taking more tomcats out of the total buy. Also the tomcat(D) has a worse static T/W than the super hornet (0.91 vs 0.88 at loaded) and a worse fuel fraction as well. It's greatest performance advantage (swing wing) was also the reason for it's demise (cost). Looking at how Navair can barely field enough aircraft between the hornet family for 11 carrier air wings now, I can't imagine how bad it would have been having more aircraft types and having the more expensive tomcats still flying. I could see a carrier air wing only running 1 tomcat squad and loads of legacy hornets which I see as being a far worse mix then we have had over the last 15 years.

on a side note I don't have anything against the tomcat, but if you don't have the money you don't have the money. I think the super has evolved into a damn good strike fighter and is only getting better in block III.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 13:22
by mixelflick
Really, the SH win boiled down to 1 thing: Money. It was perceived as cheaper. Maybe. But what is undeniable is this: The Navy got what it paid for..

Cheap

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 17:57
by geforcerfx
mixelflick wrote:Really, the SH win boiled down to 1 thing: Money. It was perceived as cheaper. Maybe. But what is undeniable is this: The Navy got what it paid for..

Cheap


Block 1 was definitely that route, a legacy hornet in a more capable airframe(much long strike range, heavier strike loads). Block II was the successor to the tomcat with the radar and avionics upgrades plus the aim-120 c7 was ready at block 2 fielding giving them near phoenix range and they would have the amraam D in 5 years for greater than phoenix range. You don't get the speed of the tomcat but with the sensor improvements in the surface fleet and the E-2 i don't think it was as necessary.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 14:26
by mixelflick
Let's wrap this little debate up with a quote from someone who should know, shall we?

"As Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist, USN (Ret.) noted in 2002 regarding the Tomcat’s retirement and the less impressive performance of its lighter replacement, the F-18E:

Though it’s a whizzy little airshow performer with a nice, modern cockpit, it has only 36 percent of the F-14’s payload/range capability. The F-18E Super Hornet has been improved but still has, at best, 50 percent of the F-14’s capability to deliver a fixed number of bombs (in pounds) on target. This naturally means that the carrier radius of influence drops to 50 percent of what it would have been with the same number of F-14s. As a result, the area of influence (not radius) drops to 23 percent!"

He's a US Navy Rear Admiral, not one of us F-16 folk. Pretty profound statement, wouldn't you say?

GAME OVER

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 16:31
by crosshairs
mixelflick wrote:Let's wrap this little debate up with a quote from someone who should know, shall we?

"As Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist, USN (Ret.) noted in 2002 regarding the Tomcat’s retirement and the less impressive performance of its lighter replacement, the F-18E:

Though it’s a whizzy little airshow performer with a nice, modern cockpit, it has only 36 percent of the F-14’s payload/range capability. The F-18E Super Hornet has been improved but still has, at best, 50 percent of the F-14’s capability to deliver a fixed number of bombs (in pounds) on target. This naturally means that the carrier radius of influence drops to 50 percent of what it would have been with the same number of F-14s. As a result, the area of influence (not radius) drops to 23 percent!"

He's a US Navy Rear Admiral, not one of us F-16 folk. Pretty profound statement, wouldn't you say?

GAME OVER


Yup. Not to mention the bring back capability of unused ordinance for the cat was FAR greater than the super bug. New build cats would have added supercruise and super maneuverability to the bag of tricks, along with likely the largest AESA radar ever put into a fighter.

As I said early in this thread, circa 1986 we were planning on having the A-12 to kick down the door and suppress air defenses while new advanced cats took care of whomever came up to challenge - something you can do with a cat and its fuel load and something the bug needs to be weighted down with external fuel making it even more of a slug than it is otherwise - and other cats serving as bombcats since defenses were suppressed by Avengers.

But bug fans don't want to hear their bird is a turd and an expensive little toy that looks good air airshows with its slow sleep nose pointing ability that it real a2a combat is f*cked to use and bleed away your energy like that for someone else to pick you off nice and easy.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 19:40
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:So the Hornet can dogfight better? That's entirely debatable, but why are we talking about dogfighting in 2019? Do that in an F-35 thread, and you'll be crucified. That's so yesteryear, and doesn't matter anymore.

Why should it matter here?


I for one have always maintained that dogfights will always matter. the F-22 and F-35 will need to be just as proficient as the P-51, just as pilots and people in the know have always said, you can not rule out dogfights.

They can crucify me all they want for saying this, but I will just keep quoting pilot statements who say that the F-22 and F-35 can still end up in a dogfight and are designed to dominate in that environment as well.

It may be less likely sure, but if mistakes happen or you are dealing with a 2nd wave of bandits after crossing IADS lines, you may still find yourself in a phone booth with someone. General Mike Hostage's words not mine.

It matters all the more if you have the RCS of a barn house like an F-14. HOBS and JHMCS? well according to F-35 test pilot Tom Morgandeld, these things can only diminish the relevance of maneuverability to a degree, but maneuverability will always be relevant on a fighter.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2019, 12:03
by eloise
crosshairs wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:Watching the thread go to a SH vs Tomcat thread was interesting, I knew who would show up and how they would act and they didn't disappoint.

As others have tried to add to the conversation the super hornet was the best the navy could do in the times that it had to happen, budgets were, and still are falling. The tomcat was expensive, new version were going to be even more expensive, and like pointed out the hornet family was selling well elsewhere. It had a much larger pedigree for multi-role was a simpler aircraft and safer bet at the time. Looking forward the Navy is in the same spot as it was if not worse. Navair isn't going to get a new "Tomcat" big high performance aircraft that's on the front line of technical. The budget isn't there and prob won't be there, F/A-XX will prob just be a upgraded F-35C as long as the airframe proves itself over the next decade. Navy has to buy a lot of very expensive ships over the next 10 years and i think Navair will keep getting the shaft in that budget environment, especially if they keep screwing up on how they are spending that money on the ships.


That is just plain wrong. Super hornet was an all new aircraft that cost much more to develop than evolving the F-14 the way that the F-15 was evolved (for the rest of the world, just not to include the USAF). From a budgetary perspective the cat would have been a cheaper program. Your opening statement is incorrect. Most of the tooling for new cats was bought and paid for many times over. SH was far from the best Navair could do. A super slow straight wing underpowered slushbucket is pretty much outclassed in any encounter with a sukhoi, hobs or not.

The whole dogfighting debate was quite hilarious as people try to say the SH was a better dogfighter than the new cat would have been. Plane A underpowered and everything hanging on pylons under those straight wings. Plane B much higher T/W and basically a lifting body with that big flat space between engines with at least 4 AAMs semi recessed.

What is F-18E/F vs ST21 T/W with new engine?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 17:23
by mixelflick
sferrin wrote:
madrat wrote:F-14 with EFT? Link please.


While it didn't go into production they did look at a CFT for a USAF F-14:

ADCOM-F-14.jpg


Those CFT's are ugly as hell, and the low drag index of "the tunnel" looks to go away completely with any meaningful load. Good grief. And they did what with the EFT's, moved them to the outer weapons station? More drag, more ugly.

But I had never seen this picture before nor heard of where CFT's would have gone. So I thank you for it...

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2019, 21:33
by gtg947h
mixelflick wrote:
sferrin wrote:
madrat wrote:F-14 with EFT? Link please.


While it didn't go into production they did look at a CFT for a USAF F-14:

ADCOM-F-14.jpg


Those CFT's are ugly as hell, and the low drag index of "the tunnel" looks to go away completely with any meaningful load. Good grief. And they did what with the EFT's, moved them to the outer weapons station? More drag, more ugly.

But I had never seen this picture before nor heard of where CFT's would have gone. So I thank you for it...


More specifically, I believe this was a mockup of an F-14 variant optimized for the continental air defense role (think NORAD). Lots of gas for long patrols and loiter time, I assume.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 01:03
by n3sk
F-14, F-15 and F18’s time has come and gone. They are all designs based in the 60/70’s. Time to move forward.

Navy should have picked up the YF-23 in low numbers. It’s performance that would have eclipsed all 3. Also keeping Northrop/McDonell on the cutting edge of fighter design. Instead all is going to Lockheed who’s capable but has a lock on the fighter market. Stagnation of natural competition. Example being look at the X-32 X-35 competition, X 32 was a turd... Who’s going to be able to compete on the next generation? US fighter design has stagnated like never before!

Naval F-23 would have given a similar capabilities as the airforces F22/35 combo. While allowing another group working in development. It’s a shame the Yf23 was left behind, beautiful aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 02:46
by pmi
Except that Northrop's NATF proposal was a completely different airframe.

Image

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 10:27
by zero-one
n3sk wrote:Navy should have picked up the YF-23 in low numbers.


One of the contributing factors for the selection of the YF-22 was that it was easier to modify for Naval roles. But even Lockheed had to completely redesign the wing and adapt a variable geometry design.

Northrop had to change their design altogether to suite carrier compatibility. So the YF-23 would not make it to the NATF program.

I stand by my opinion that the YF-22 was the right choice, it was the better fighter
But if the USAF followed a Soviet style doctrine where it had an Air Defense force branch (V-PVO). You could argue that the they would of preferred the YF-23 which is more like an interceptor with considerable fighter characteristics as opposed to the YF-22 which is the other way around.

Metz said the selection was heavily influenced by the Eagle community which basically wanted the ultimate ACM machine, hence the YF-22.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 21:51
by tomcattech
This thread has been interesting to say the least.

Lots of thoughts on the Superbug vs. Next Gen Cat debate here.

Personally I think that the Next Gen Cat would have been a better interceptor AND had the capability to be a better ground attack aircraft than the Superbug if the time\funds allowed. (But that is the catch here is it not?)

However I'm trying to see the point in all of this as the F-35C is a more capable aircraft in almost all respects to both of them and we need to be pushing to get as many of them on the catapults as soon as possible.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 14:13
by wooster
zero-one wrote:
n3sk wrote:Navy should have picked up the YF-23 in low numbers.


One of the contributing factors for the selection of the YF-22 was that it was easier to modify for Naval roles. But even Lockheed had to completely redesign the wing and adapt a variable geometry design.

Northrop had to change their design altogether to suite carrier compatibility. So the YF-23 would not make it to the NATF program.

I stand by my opinion that the YF-22 was the right choice, it was the better fighter
But if the USAF followed a Soviet style doctrine where it had an Air Defense force branch (V-PVO). You could argue that the they would of preferred the YF-23 which is more like an interceptor with considerable fighter characteristics as opposed to the YF-22 which is the other way around.

Metz said the selection was heavily influenced by the Eagle community which basically wanted the ultimate ACM machine, hence the YF-22.


Easier to convert the F-22 to a NATF? The entire aircraft was all new except for the radome and the canopy. And with the swing wings cutting the fuselage, it would contain less fuel than a F-22A and that design was a throwback to the F-111 whereas the F-14 was a lesson learned and kept the wings out of the fuselage.

The "F-22N" would not be able to carry anything under the wings. It also would not be able to carry anything under the fuselage. No drop tanks. No external stores. That was was better than the Northrop offering that had under-wine storage?

F-22 better fighter than F-23? Why? Because it had a conventional F-15 like tail? The F-23 tails size mean that offered more controllability and meaneuverability at low speeds and at high altitudes without the weight penalty and complexity (physical and software) of TV.

The USAF wanted the ultimate ACM machine. That's what they would have bought in the F-23A. Faster, more maneuverable, and longer ranged than an F-15, and wrapped up in a slick ELO airframe.

F-23 has the characteristics of an interceptor and F-22 those of a fighter? How so is that? Was the F-23 like an F-104, point and click go, and hope you don't have to maneuver or meet another fighter from the wrong side?

We all have our own opinions. Just wondering how you arrived at the F-23 being an interceptor and the F-22 being a fighter.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 15:11
by sferrin
wooster wrote:And with the swing wings cutting the fuselage, it would contain less fuel than a F-22A and that design was a throwback to the F-111 whereas the F-14 was a lesson learned and kept the wings out of the fuselage.


And this matters because. . .? And yeah, the YF-22 was FAR more similar to the naval variant than the YF-23. The YF-23 was two different aircraft. Not similar, not "common", a different aircraft entirely.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 15:45
by mixelflick
I doubt the Navy would have been happy with either.

The F-22N's swing wings are a thing of the past, primarily due to the fact they add weight and complexity. There's a reason air forces/Navy's around the world no longer build swing wing fighters/fighter-bombers.

The navalised F-23... is anyone's guess. It certainly didn't look like the YF-23A, and likely wouldn't have performed like it. I think it would have been horribly expensive as well, getting it carrier qualified. Given the cost, I also think it'd be a short production run and getting each carrier equipped with 2 squadrons was going to be a challenge. Hell, the F-35C and its (eventually $80 million) price tag is proving difficult to afford.

The F-35C will carry the load, at least until the F/A-XX gets here. Hopefully this time, the Navy keeps its program separate from PCA. That might not be easy, as in a budget crunch I can easily see the "let's come up with a common platform to save $" argument winning the day. Very rarely worked. The F-4 being the lone successful example I can think of..

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 15:50
by botsing
n3sk wrote:US fighter design has stagnated like never before!

The F-35 is here now in three variants, it's block updates (current and future ones) are being worked on, the T-X is in development and there is work in progress for several other studies (e.g. F/A-XX and PCA).

At the same time there is a lot of development going on for new sensors/EW, new weapons and new engines.

So please point out where you think this "stagnated" is happening.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 16:22
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote: Very rarely worked. The F-4 being the lone successful example I can think of..

A-7. As far as I'm concerned history has shown if you build the right Navy plane the AF can use it. The opposite is not true.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 17:12
by SpudmanWP
botsing wrote:So please point out where you think this "stagnated" is happening.

I think he was yearning for the days of multiple fighters serving the same job, fighters only lasting a few years before being replaced, specialized fighters vs multi-role, etc.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 17:19
by outlaw162
The opposite is not true.


There were over 1000 FJ-2s -3s and -4s built for the Navy and Marines.

However, when the Navy saw the follow-on F-100, an admiral reputedly summed it up with a line Benchley would later use:

"We're going to need a bigger boat." :shock:

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 17:49
by sprstdlyscottsmn
outlaw162 wrote:
The opposite is not true.


There were over 1000 FJ-2s -3s and -4s built for the Navy and Marines.

You're right! I forgot all about the Fury being a navalized Saber. Okay so we are at Fury vs Phantom and SLUF. I still think things are slanted in the Navies favor. These days requirements are too different, hindsight is 20/20 with rose colored glasses, and all that. I look forward to seeing what F/A-XX will be, but I imagine the NGAD will be somewhere between the F-22 and the B-21. AF wants that speed and range while the Navy above all has to be able to land on the boat.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 18:35
by outlaw162
I agree with you. The old Douglas Aircraft made some good money at that time off of the F3D Skyknight and F4D Skyray for the Navy and Marines, specifically designed to get off and on the boat foremost, although the Skyray was no slouch performance-wise. (And then there was the somewhat less than successful A2D Skyshark turbo-prop, wanted neither by the Navy nor Air Force.) However, the Navy ADs were adopted by the USAF and the USAF C-54s and -118s were adopted by the runway Navy. The D-558 series program was a Navy program also, a long way from any boat. :D

(I lived across the street from the SM Douglas factory where a portion of the AD Skyraiders were built. Loved watching 'em until one went into a house off the end of the runway.)

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 19:35
by n3sk

So please point out where you think this "stagnated" is happening.


Years ago, there where many manufacturers cranking out designs. It seems as though Lockheed is getting all the $ for development. Lockheed is extremely capable and build some amazing aircraft. The F 22 & F 35 are capable machines and I understand the logistics behind the F-35 on carriers when it comes to maintenance and parts commonality. What I am curious about is in the future, it seems that there’s little competition, as Lockheed has a monopoly on fighter design. Hopefully they don’t stagnant. Competition breeds innovation.

At the same time, I don’t know what’s happening behind closed doors, so this could be a non-issue and I just don’t know any better.

One of my concerns is the F-18/F 35s extremely high altitude performance, +50k. Looking 10 or 20 years into the future will it be able to counter matured Su-57’s and J-20’s from a carrier based platform?

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 19:44
by n3sk
To add to it the Chinese, are graduating more engineers than any other country and their manufacturing base is growing at a much faster rate than any other country. They have the potential in the future be extremely capable.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 19:53
by wrightwing
n3sk wrote:

So please point out where you think this "stagnated" is happening.


Years ago, there where many manufacturers cranking out designs. It seems as though Lockheed is getting all the $ for development. Lockheed is extremely capable and build some amazing aircraft. The F 22 & F 35 are capable machines and I understand the logistics behind the F-35 on carriers when it comes to maintenance and parts commonality. What I am curious about is in the future, it seems that there’s little competition, as Lockheed has a monopoly on fighter design. Hopefully they don’t stagnant. Competition breeds innovation.

At the same time, I don’t know what’s happening behind closed doors, so this could be a non-issue and I just don’t know any better.

One of my concerns is the F-18/F 35s extremely high altitude performance, +50k. Looking 10 or 20 years into the future will it be able to counter matured Su-57’s and J-20’s from a carrier based platform?


Even mature Su-57/J-20s will have inferior signature reduction, sensors, and numbers. Extreme high altitude performance is a very small part of aerial combat, and there's simply not enough difference for it to be an issue (especially in the case of the F-35.) The Su-57/J-20s will have to deal with SM-2/6 long before they have to deal with AIM-120D/AIM-260/LREW/SACM.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 21:23
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:There's a reason air forces/Navy's around the world no longer build swing wing fighters/fighter-bombers


What makes you think VG wings is a problem? Even Lockheed's A/F-X, which is separate program but reuses a lot of NATF technology, uses VG wings.

Obviously you don't HAVE to have VG wings, but that doesn't mean it's outdated. Depends on what your requirements are.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 01:52
by wooster
n3sk wrote:To add to it the Chinese, are graduating more engineers than any other country and their manufacturing base is growing at a much faster rate than any other country. They have the potential in the future be extremely capable.


They already are very capable engineers. Some of us work with them. Whatever gap there was 15 years ago is gone. Man, if you guys had first hand experience with them, you would all be singing a different tune. The gap is gone. They will overtake us. They don't have lib-tards blocking every project and advancement because it threatens a rare breed of mosquito.

The majority of all the tooling for everything sold in the USA is constructed in China, shipped to the US or Mexico and then turned on. Your American cars are basically all tooled in China. That's why the Chinese can build a credible stealth aircraft and the Russians cannot: tooling.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 03:43
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:The F-22N's swing wings are a thing of the past, primarily due to the fact they add weight and complexity.


What in the world gives you that idea? As others have pointed out, both the NATF F-22 and the follow-on AF/X would have had swing-wings. The swing-wing didn't kill it, budgets did.

mixelflick wrote:There's a reason air forces/Navy's around the world no longer build swing wing fighters/fighter-bombers.


Yeah, there hasn't been a need that required them recently. By your rational large cargo aircraft are a thing of the past because "nobody builds them anymore". Up until a few years ago the same could have been said of ALBMs. How'd that work out? The notion that "swing-wings are obsolete" is simplistic (to be kind). Hell, Russia is building TWO of them. They're building a new variant of the Backfire and new-build Blackjacks.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 12:40
by mixelflick
I make that assertion because no 5th gen (or beyond) tactical aircraft that I can see anywhere are using VG wings. Look at Japan's concept for a 5th gen fighter. Korea's? Russia's? China's? Europe's? Turkey's? They're ALL fixed wing designs, not even a single swing wing in CONCEPT art (that I've seen). China and Russia have both pursued big carriers like ours, yet neither is pursuing any type of swing wing aircraft to equip either. You'd think if it was going to show up anywhere, it'd be in carrier aviation. But it's not, and there are good reasons for it (weight, cost and complexity).

The Backfire/TU-160? They're re-hashed hash, going back to design work done in the 1970's. Since they have fundamental problems building any type of VLO aircraft, they're working with the only thing they know. And I seriously doubt whether PAK DA or the Chinese H-20 will opt for a swing wing, either...

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 14:25
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:I make that assertion because no 5th gen (or beyond) tactical aircraft that I can see anywhere are using VG wings.


So what? All that means is that other countries are looking for multirole aircraft, with an emphasis on air-combat. If you looked at the future in the mid 80s you'd have thought the standard tailed fighter was "old fashioned" and "obsolete" because every artist's impression, mockup, concept, etc. was a canard-delta. How'd that work out?

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 14:55
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The biggest advantage to VG was that it allowed lower approach speeds and higher dash speeds. It is best suited to aircraft that are already going to be heavy and need all the help they can get on take-off and landing.

Use on a VLO airframe is problematic. People like to think that canards ruin stealth? Imagine a whole wing that can't decide where it is going to sit. Or do you design the plane to only be VLO with the wings swept back? What about when that plane is performing CAP duties?

I love the F-14. I am an F-14 fanboy. I have no problem acknowledging the issues of VG and VLO combining.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 15:33
by quicksilver
Some of what VG did (or at least, intended) is now achieved through advances in flight controls, high-lift devices and emerging propulsion technologies.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 15:50
by sferrin
quicksilver wrote:Some of what VG did (or at least, intended) is now achieved through advances in flight controls, high-lift devices and emerging propulsion technologies.


Not to mention the "high subsonic at 200 feet" requirement seems to have evaporated as well.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 15:53
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The biggest advantage to VG was that it allowed lower approach speeds and higher dash speeds. It is best suited to aircraft that are already going to be heavy and need all the help they can get on take-off and landing.

Use on a VLO airframe is problematic. People like to think that canards ruin stealth? Imagine a whole wing that can't decide where it is going to sit. Or do you design the plane to only be VLO with the wings swept back? What about when that plane is performing CAP duties?

I love the F-14. I am an F-14 fanboy. I have no problem acknowledging the issues of VG and VLO combining.


And yet both the NATF F-22 and AF/X (or A/F-X or whatever the hell) both had swing wings with the RCS apparently optimized for the swept condition.

That said, I would attribute the stealth requirement for swing-wings going away rather than any inherent flaw with swing-wings themselves.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2019, 02:16
by n3sk
Maintenance wise, I have heard keeping the hydraulics from leaking on the F-14 was a constant effort. Seems like an unnecessary hassle.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2019, 04:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
(sarcasm) that's how you know it still has fluid, like a Humvee (/sarcasm). Yeah, they were hangar queens.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2019, 09:12
by zero-one
wooster wrote:Easier to convert the F-22 to a NATF?

Those were not my words. You can check here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090106044 ... avf22.html

wooster wrote:F-22 better fighter than F-23? Why?

Have you seen the documentary called "YF-23 secrets" I believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYUu-xLnmzM

Here in the 36 minute mark, Northrop engineers and executives said that the Lockheed made decisions to make theirs the more agile plane, although their airplane (YF-23) would have better stealth.

wooster wrote:The USAF wanted the ultimate ACM machine. That's what they would have bought in the F-23A. Faster, more maneuverable, and longer ranged than an F-15, and wrapped up in a slick ELO airframe.

You do know that the YF-22 had twice the number of control surfaces as the YF-23 right?
But I'm no engineer so what do I know.

So heres what F-16.net's resident Aero Engineer had to say about the topic
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:In this sense, even with the info we have, the YF-22 was certainly more maneuverable. It had more capability, especially on the edge, than the YF-23.


wooster wrote:F-23 has the characteristics of an interceptor and F-22 those of a fighter? How so is that? Was the F-23 like an F-104, point and click go, and hope you don't have to maneuver or meet another fighter from the wrong side?

Thats not what I said I said the YF-23 was more like an interceptor with considerable fighter characteristics while the YF-22 was more like a fighter with considerable interceptor characteristics. Both can do both jobs well but 1 can do 1 job better than it can do the other.

Another example of that is the F-15 and F-14. I don't need to tell you which one is more suited for the fighter role and which one is more suited to be an interceptor. But both can perform those jobs well.

If you want to talk about this more, lets proceed here:
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=3010&start=510

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2019, 01:41
by wooster
Why is the F-22 a better fighter than a hypothetical F-23? A F-23 would be a better fighter. It all goes back to the OODA loop.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2019, 09:10
by zero-one
wooster wrote:It all goes back to the OODA loop.

How would the YF-23 be better in the OODA loop? They would have the same sensor suite, the 23 also had a lower internal weapons load, and if the redesign was approved to achieve a stacked missile load, then it can pose reliability concerns if one missile jams. The YF-22 also flew more hours and more sorties than the 23 so reliability was also a factor.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2019, 13:33
by wooster
zero-one wrote:
wooster wrote:It all goes back to the OODA loop.

How would the YF-23 be better in the OODA loop? They would have the same sensor suite, the 23 also had a lower internal weapons load, and if the redesign was approved to achieve a stacked missile load, then it can pose reliability concerns if one missile jams. The YF-22 also flew more hours and more sorties than the 23 so reliability was also a factor.


Stealthier (especially in thermal) and lower detection range, faster and more able to decide where and when to fight, and longer ranged and able to loiter longer or reach further into contested airspace. The F-22 offers practically nothing in the way of IR suppression. The 23 was probably magnitudes of order smaller in the IR bandwidth. Sensors are 1/2 of the equation, and the other half is the airframe.

As far as reliability, the 22 doesn't do so well in that area, does it? One cannot measure the reliability of a demonstrator and map it 1:1 into a production article.

It's also unfair for the op to compare the 22 and 23 to being like the 15 and 14. Not even a close comparison. One barely had a .7 t/w ratio and no ailerons and slow moving VG wings and they other designed to fight with a gun. The 23 was designed to be better than 15 in a gun fight, so to say its more suited to an interceptor role is an incorrect conclusion.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2019, 15:05
by zero-one
wooster wrote:
Stealthier (especially in thermal) and lower detection range, faster and more able to decide where and when to fight, and longer ranged and able to loiter longer or reach further into contested airspace. The F-22 offers practically nothing in the way of IR suppression. The 23 was probably magnitudes of order smaller in the IR bandwidth. Sensors are 1/2 of the equation, and the other half is the airframe.

Continuing this conversation here:
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=3010&p=423577#p423577