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

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.

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". Also read they kicked around the idea of F119s.

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.

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.)

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.

Well I for one am glad to hear things like Bears, Backfires, and Blackjacks are no longer a threat.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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..

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.

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.