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

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

gtg947h

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 199
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 16:52

Unread post11 May 2019, 21:33

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.
Offline
User avatar

n3sk

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:35

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 01:03

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.
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 02:46

Except that Northrop's NATF proposal was a completely different airframe.

Image
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2141
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 10:27

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.
Offline

tomcattech

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2017, 18:11

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 21:51

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.
Hornets by mandate. Tomcats by choice!!
Offline

wooster

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2019, 19:10

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 14:13

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5334
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 15:11

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.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3315
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 15:45

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..
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 808
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 15:50

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.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 16:22

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.
"Spurts"

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

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8380
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 17:12

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.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1280
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 17:19

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:
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 17:49

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.
"Spurts"

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

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1280
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 18:35

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.)
Offline
User avatar

n3sk

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:35

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 19:35


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?
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests