F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 who's da boss thread.

[Freiwillige]

I stumbled across a similar thread in another forum and it got me researching a bit.

The outcome of that thread and many others I,ve found since is that the F-15 is top dog bar none. The F-14 is an unmenouverable missle truck that would get its backside handed to it on a plate in close in dogfighting with any of the three.

The F-16 and F-18 were similar and deadly but not on the F-15's level.

So I dug out books and searched the internet and came to a surprising revelation. The F-14 is not a missle truck after all despite its reputaion that thing could turn and burn with the best of them and run rings around them when things get slow. Especially the up engined D- model.

As one F-15 driver put it, "We aren't afraid of anything but well never get slow with a tomcat!"

Also interesting is that VF-111 on on returning from its last cruise did a 4 on 4 mock engament with some F-15C's short range Guns and sidwinders only. The results were most shocking of all. 1 tomcat killed 4 F-15's splashed!:o

It could have been the pilots that made the difference.

So which bird do you root for?

[TarJak]

I've always loved the F14, great lines, fast and much more manouverable than you'd think. Best of all is it's stand off capability. Most targets of the 14 wouldn't even know there was another aircraft near enough to get a hit when they used the AIM-54 Phoenix.

I love the F-18 as well but the lines and swing wing of the 14 did it for me.

[onelifecrisis]

All I know is what they look like.
F-14: UGLY!
F-18: UGLY!
F-15: Sweeeeeeet! (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/USAF_F-15D_Top.jpg)
F-16: Non-descript, but I saw one of these maneuvering at an airshow recently and I thought it was damn impressive for a 30yo plane.

[baggygreen]

There's always been something about the hornet for me.

The Tomcat is a lovely bird, I've developed a lot of appreciation for the styling and design of the fighting falcon over the years, but the eagle just doesn't do it for me. I know it's effective, but the lines make it seem more like a big bugger.

[NeonSamurai]

I vote for the F-16 itself. It is by far the most versetile, has the largest payload to weight ratio (I think it still beats the F-18), I think it beats them in power to weight as well (but not 100% sure on that). Oh and can and usually does make mincemeat out of the F15 in dogfights. In the last several wars it was also the main workhorse.

In Desert Storm it flew a total of 13,340 sorties, which was more than any other aircraft, and flew every possible type of mission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon_operational_history

[Raptor1]

The MiG-29...? Sorry. :O:

Anyway, all of these are designed for mostly different purposes, it's hard to compare them like that.

[TLAM Strike]

Well when you say F-15 I assume you mean the F-15 Eagle and Not the F-15E Strike Eagle. If so then...

The F/A-18 Hornet. She is the best multirole fighter on the list. She has a higher payload than the F-16. Can buddy tank (something no USAF fighter can do), and carries the highest number of AAMs (10) of the planes listed.

But really the F/A-18 and the F-16 are the only planes it far to compare. The F-15 is an Air Superiority fighter designed to kill other fighters, the F-14 is a Fleet Defense Fighter (a navy way of saying Interceptor) designed to kill missile carrying bombers. The 16 and 18 are the only two multirole fighters on the list.

[Molon Labe]

I'm biased in favor of the Navy, so I love the F-14... But...

The F-15 has 104 kills with no losses. By any fair standard, this makes it the greatest fighter of all time... (Kanye moment) Of all time!

The F-14 has a good combat record, but nowhere near as good as the F-15s.

I wouldn't even consider the 16 or 18... no legs. I would still love to fly the Viper, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrYjEMY4Ttg) though.

And as for the MiG-29... The score right now is
F-15: 9, MiG-29: 0.
F-16: 2, MiG-29: 0 (or maybe just 1 to 0)
To it's credit, the MiG-29 does have confirmed kills against a Georgian UAV and some Cessnas. LOL. :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

The F-18 is based on the Northrop F-17 Cobra project. The F-16 beat the F-17 for the contract, but I've heard (rumor only, so big dose of salt here) that there may have been some finagling involved, and the F-17 was the better aircraft. The F-18, being navalised, is bigger and heavier than its forbear, so it's not as agile.

My choice:
F-15
F-16
F-18
F-14

[Oberon]

Hmmm, I'm going to go for the F-14, because a) someones got to, b) Phoenix and c) It's just an awesome aircraft.

The F-18 though is a very capable bird, as is the F-16. The F-15 is good air to air but probably has found its niche in the Strike role.

Otherwise, MiG-29 :haha:

[Molon Labe]

MiGs and beers were made to be pounded.

[Raptor1]

And as for the MiG-29... The score right now is
F-15: 9, MiG-29: 0.
F-16: 2, MiG-29: 0
To it's credit, the MiG-29 does have confirmed kills against a Georgian UAV and some Cessnas. LOL. :haha:

It looks awesome, though.

Also, I wouldn't write off the MiG-29 so quickly. Like most ex-Soviet equipment, it has never been in a combat situation against western aircraft where the odds weren't completely one-sided, or with well-trained pilots, or without downgraded export equipment and weapons and so forth. Though the Su-27 and variants of it will probably be more effective than it in modern air combat anyway.

[TLAM Strike]

The F-15 has 104 kills with no losses. By any fair standard, this makes it the greatest fighter of all time... (Kanye moment) Of all time!

Now that is very debatable...

The F-4 Phantom II, had 147.5 kills in Vietnam Alone. 32 in the Iran Iraq War, and 116.5 by the IAF. That is 296 Kills. Easily the highest of any Post WWII fighter (if the recent research in to the F-86s real win/loss rate is true). Sure its loss rate was higher but it flew in more dangerous airspace.

[Oberon]

It looks awesome, though.

Also, I wouldn't write off the MiG-29 so quickly. Like most ex-Soviet equipment, it has never been in a combat situation against western aircraft where the odds weren't completely one-sided, or with well-trained pilots, or without downgraded export equipment and weapons and so forth. Though the Su-27 and variants of it will probably be more effective than it in modern air combat anyway.

IIRC, after the fall of the wall, Germany put some MiG-29s up against some F-16s, and the MiGs kicked arse, I can't recall why, but I think it was a A or B, so the MiGs locked on and plucked them from the sky before the F-16 could lock onto the MiG.

There have been a number of other occasions where Luftwaffe MiGs have surprised the west. A bit like the Kontakt-5 ERA on Soviet tanks that Germany inherited from the fall of the wall. They tested M829 APFSDS on it, the depleted uranium sabot, and the ERA stopped it. That then lead to the newer versions of the M829, now on the A3 I think.

So, don't rule them out on an equal footing (ie, like Raptor says, equal training or odds).

Still, F-14s are awesome.

[Molon Labe]

Now that is very debatable...

The F-4 Phantom II, had 147.5 kills in Vietnam Alone. 32 in the Iran Iraq War, and 116.5 by the IAF. That is 296 Kills. Easily the highest of any Post WWII fighter (if the recent research in to the F-86s real win/loss rate is true). Sure its loss rate was higher but it flew in more dangerous airspace.


Sorry, but the F-4 could barely handle itself against MiG-17s and -21s in a dogfight. The F-15 has dominated everything it flew against (and so have the -14 and -16, but with far fewer engagements)

The kill ratio is the bottom line for me. I don't care what an aircraft should've/would've/could've done. Especially the MiG claims... the MiGs need to put up or shut up.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree about the ratio. We lost 382 Phantoms in combat. This of course includes the ones lost to SAMs and AA fire, so the official kill/loss ratio is 1.5-to-1. Go back and look at the kill/loss ratio for the F-15.

[Platapus]

I would think it would be more influenced on the training of the pilots and how often they can practice.

The aircraft is but a tool..

So are some of the pilots but that's for another thread. :D

[Oberon]

I would think it would be more influenced on the training of the pilots and how often they can practice.

The aircraft is but a tool..

So are some of the pilots but that's for another thread. :D

:har: Well said.

[The Third Man]

Kind of compairing apples and oranges. There is good reason why the four aircraft were develpoed in the first place. It comes down to mission, many of which have changed considerably over the years.

Do you want a long range/loiter A/C with the ability to defend CBGs from ALCMs ? A close in gunfighter to act tactically against a high quanty agile fighter threat? A multi-role A/C which can replace non-mach capable medium bombers? Or a top cover A/C which can dominate the airspace?

I suspect all four would be valuable.

[TLAM Strike]

I'll admit the F-15 does a great job shooting down poorly trained Syrians and Iraqis fleeing to a neutral country. :haha:

[krashkart]

Now that is very debatable...

The F-4 Phantom II, had 147.5 kills in Vietnam Alone. 32 in the Iran Iraq War, and 116.5 by the IAF. That is 296 Kills. Easily the highest of any Post WWII fighter (if the recent research in to the F-86s real win/loss rate is true). Sure its loss rate was higher but it flew in more dangerous airspace.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=179&pictureid=3336

R.I.P. :salute:

The ANG flew them out of Gowen Field when I was a kid. As much as I like the birds that have been in service since, the F4 tops my list. I like all the unusual little details in the design that keep the whole system in balance. And from a certain angle the Phantom looks very much like a bird of prey. A thing of primitive beauty, I guess. :DL

But, since we are talking about these other aircraft I'd have to vote for the F-14. It was a very complicated design that actually worked out pretty well, despite some of its flaws. And of course that impressive weapon system. Didn't know that Eagles would have a hard time fighting a Tomcat, though. I'd have thought it would be the other way around. What is this world coming to? :lol:

[Bubblehead1980]

I voted for the F-14.Never saw as much air to air combat as F-15 because it was not used by other nations like Israel but F-14 shot down some planes and no air to air losses as far as I know.

Personally, I think when it comes to F-14 versus F-15, it's a quality of the pilot thing:arrgh!:

[krashkart]

Personally, I think when it comes to F-14 versus F-15, it's a quality of the pilot thing:arrgh!:

Could very well be the case. :yep:

[The Third Man]

I voted for the F-14.Never saw as much air to air combat as F-15 because it was not used by other nations like Israel but F-14 shot down some planes and no air to air losses as far as I know.

Personally, I think when it comes to F-14 versus F-15, it's a quality of the pilot thing:arrgh!:

But an Israeli F-15 landed safely after an in air collision which removed the starboard wing of the F-15. Admittedly this isn't the primary role of the F-15 it does lend credence to its robust nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs

[krashkart]

But an Israeli F-15 landed safely after an in air collision which removed the starboard wing of the F-15. Admittedly this isn't the primary role of the F-15 it does lend credence to its robust nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs

That's pretty amazing, isn't it? How the pilot managed to wrestle back control is beyond me, man. :)

[The Third Man]

That's pretty amazing, isn't it? How the pilot managed to wrestle back control is beyond me, man. :)

Aerodynamics and the knowledge that if all else failed he had a way out.

That is how he did it.

Airline pilots can't just leave. But 25° of bank/10° of pitch is also limiting.

[Oberon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMSbkdW26M

[TLAM Strike]

That's pretty amazing, isn't it? How the pilot managed to wrestle back control is beyond me, man. :)

In the video he sort of explained it. By increasing his air speed he decreased the amount of lift required to stay airborne and was able to correct the spin. This principle is why aircraft have flaps, they increase lift to allow the aircraft stay airborne at low speeds. Aircraft with less wing area have higher stall speeds requiring larger flaps or breaking gear ('Chutes, or arrester hooks) to land.

The F-8 Crusader has flown several times (both by accident or design) with what amounts to 60% wing area by having its wings folded. (Not sure if the folded wings also add to lift pushing the aircraft down negating more wing area or what)

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/3672/f8wingsfolded67.jpg

http://mofak.com/Night_Infamy.htm

[The Third Man]

By increasing his air speed he decreased the amount of lift required to stay airborne



May I suggest Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, to clear your mind on this subject. I think it will clear the minds of the non-aviator types when it comes to weight v. gravity visa vis thrust v. lift.

[Skybird]

All four are great aircraft, but the comparison is not precise. For example the different production blocks can differ greatly for a type, and you also have to take intop account like radar signature, radar quality, maintenance, etc. Other factors relativise existing qualities. The Phoenix missile for example was designed to track huge Soviet bombers before they could start to flood the airspace with missiles - it was not designed to be used at maxiumum range against small fighters (if they even could be tracked over that maximum range at all).

My vote is for the most ugly of the four, the modern and newest F/A-18E/F, the Super Hornet, Block II and III. The latest blocks of F-16 also would be a good choice due to its versatility. The F-15 and F-14 have great looks, no doubt. But I wonder about their survivability in an strong and modern electronics environment. They are simply the oldest of the four, and have great radar signatures for their type class. Although the F-15 received several upgrade programs and replacements of its radar, the airframes have started to show wear and tear due to their age.

I think all four types are inferior to both the Raptor and the Eurofighter, with the Eurofighter being a multi-role-capable fighter.

I have lost track in recent years of what the Russians are coming up with these days. I'm sure you better don't count out their latest models. And at least in the past Russians tended to have some really nasty A-A missiles, of both precision and great range.

[Growler]

Ah, the F-4. Built on the principle that, given enough power, even a brick can fly.:DL Always had a soft spot for that bird.

Until I met the F-16C. Who can't love a bird that'll turn on a dime and give you change? Cute bird, at that, with easily the best visibility out of the cockpit AND the smallest profile of the lot - critical in a close in furball.

The multirole aspect is what won me over, though; the F-16 reminded me so much of the Thunderbolt drivers who started war Two as fighters and ended it moving mud - the Falcon is an aircraft that'll do that in an afternoon.

[Sailor Steve]

I'll admit the F-15 does a great job shooting down poorly trained Syrians and Iraqis fleeing to a neutral country. :haha:
And the F-4 against poorly trained Vietnamese peasants? :O:

[krashkart]

Ah, the F-4. Built on the principle that, given enough power, even a brick can fly.:DL

I couldn't conjure up those words earlier. Kept thinking of cinderblocks. :haha:

[Krauter]

Just my two cents.

On the concept of K/D ratio (for me comparing the F-15 to F-14); think of the following, how many allied nations use the F-15 and have used them in a war against poorly trained pilots and have used it to its full potential. Considering the IAF as well as my main example. We see that it was used in a war which puts it on a more dangerous, target rich environment then a naval fighter will ever encounter.

Now consider the F-14, the only real user of this fighter is the Navy as well as the Iranians. HOWEVER, the US gave the Iranians a finite supply of Pheonixes and NO spare parts to fix/do maintenance. After recent events the US has refused to supply these maintenance and replacement parts to the Phoenix missiles. The weapon that makes the Tomcat so devastating in a bomber interceptor role. Effectively, this makes the USNAF the only true user of the Tomcat at its fullest potential.

Now couple this fact with the issue that the USNAF hasn't been implacated in any large scale naval conflicts requiring bomber interceptions and the K/D ratio becomes, to me, invalid Sure the F-15 may have 100+ kills to no losses, but how many engagements has it had access to with how many targets available? Compare that to the F-14 who's primary role is a Fleet DEFENCE Fighter.

Secondly; to me; the F-14 AND the F-15 win it for me, because the two were developed side by side for two different purpose (F-15 to counter the USSR's MiG-25 Foxbat Interceptor, which was wrongly assumed to be an Mach 3 air superiority fighter; F-14 to give the CVBGs better CAP and BARCAP).

Cheers, correct me on any point you deem wrong and I will attempt to support my arguments with valid sources :)

Krauter

[TarJak]

And the F-4 against poorly trained Vietnamese peasants? :O:
:har:

[Freiwillige]

Actually the latest incarnation of the phoenix missile system can target small aircraft effectively. And the tomcats AWG9 radar is unsurpassed for a fighter even to this day. It was so complex and powerful that Grumman decided to follow the phantom and have a RIO because one man couldn't operate the plane and the radar effectively.

AWG-9 can track and lock up to 14 individual targets at 200+ nautical miles!

With that kind of power you could skip the awacs:rock:

[Molon Labe]

Ohhh... I wish I had the displays of a Typhoon
I'd feel so damn important like a tycoon.
I'd fly all night, into the morn'
Beatin' off and watchin' porn
I wish I had displays like a Typhoon!

[Freiwillige]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrHSBODV0lA

F-14 vs everybody!

[Gotland]

I have lost track in recent years of what the Russians are coming up with these days. I'm sure you better don't count out their latest models. And at least in the past Russians tended to have some really nasty A-A missiles, of both precision and great range.

Looks like they have a new 5th generation fighter coming up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

[Krauter]

Looks comparable to the F-22 Raptor, at least aesthetically.

My guess is that the Russians will only be able to afford a very small amount of them, and after trying to export them to the Indians and whoever else is willing to try and foot the bill, the design will become stagnant due to lack of funds.

[krashkart]

Pretty dang close. She's distinctly Russian, though. :yep:

[Krauter]

Oh yes, it's interesting to see how it blends (maybe unintentionally) the lines of the F-22 and the Su-27(37 + number of other modifications).

[TLAM Strike]

Pretty dang close. She's distinctly Russian, though. :yep:

Yea if you want the more direct F-22 copy you need to go and talk to the Chinese:

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/3593/firstairframeofchinesej.jpg

Ohhh... I wish I had the displays of a Typhoon
I'd feel so damn important like a tycoon.
I'd fly all night, into the morn'
Beatin' off and watchin' porn
I wish I had displays like a Typhoon! LOL that made my day right there...

AWG-9 can track and lock up to 14 individual targets at 200+ nautical miles!

With that kind of power you could skip the awacs:rock: The Iranians did just that with their F-14 in the Iran/Iraq war. With their P-3s too IIRC.

And the F-4 against poorly trained Vietnamese peasants? :O: ... and their Soviet/Chinese/North Korean advisers. Vietnam was a multinational war for both sides less we forget.

Also Hanoi had more air defenses than Moscow. Baghdad in 1991 was as heavily defended as a walmat by comparison.

[nikimcbee]

I'm biased in favor of the Navy, so I love the F-14... But...

The F-15 has 104 kills with no losses. By any fair standard, this makes it the greatest fighter of all time... (Kanye moment) Of all time!

The F-14 has a good combat record, but nowhere near as good as the F-15s.

I wouldn't even consider the 16 or 18... no legs. I would still love to fly the Viper, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrYjEMY4Ttg) though.

And as for the MiG-29... The score right now is
F-15: 9, MiG-29: 0.
F-16: 2, MiG-29: 0 (or maybe just 1 to 0)
To it's credit, the MiG-29 does have confirmed kills against a Georgian UAV and some Cessnas. LOL. :haha:

:D
good post, the MiG-29 doesn't have a good record. Maybe the Russians should stop selling thier top hardware to banana republics.

[nikimcbee]

And the F-4 against poorly trained Vietnamese peasants? :O:

On a side note, I've always wondered how many of those NVA pilots were actually Russians? (like in Korea, just a better kept secret):|\\

[TLAM Strike]

I think the Su-27 Flanker needs a little love in this thread.

The Ethiopian Air Force (most likely using Russian or Ukrainian mercs) shot down 7 MiG-29 using the Flanker between 1999 and 2000.

[TLAM Strike]

On a side note, I've always wondered how many of those NVA pilots were actually Russians? (like in Korea, just a better kept secret):|\\

Not sure if there were any confirmed incidents of Russians flying combat missions for the NVAAF but there were confirmed reports of North Korean pilots flying for the Vietnamese. Apparently the Koreans got their butts handed too them by our boys and were asked to go home. I read in Proceedings a few years ago that a few are buried in Hanoi.

But the Russian advisers I was thinking of were the guys working air defense sites.

[nikimcbee]

Not sure if there were any confirmed incidents of Russians flying combat missions for the NVAAF but there were confirmed reports of North Korean pilots flying for the Vietnamese. Apparently the Koreans got their butts handed too them by our boys and were asked to go home. I read in Proceedings a few years ago that a few are buried in Hanoi.

But the Russian advisers I was thinking of were the guys working air defense sites.
I found a Russian documentary on youtube once about the Russians running the SAM sites in Vietnam. But regarding the air war, it seems kinda crazy that they wouldn't send some of their pilots up, for actual combat experence. I've never found anything confirming it, just their training of Vietnamese pilots.

[TLAM Strike]

I found a Russian documentary on youtube once about the Russians running the SAM sites in Vietnam. But regarding the air war, it seems kinda crazy that they wouldn't send some of their pilots up, for actual combat experence. I've never found anything confirming it, just their training of Vietnamese pilots.
Maybe their best pilots were transitioning over to the Su-15s, MiG-23s and MiG-25s at the time (the late 60's to early 70's were a major transition period for the Russian Air Forces) and they didn't want to send them to fly the older MiG aircraft that they might be familiar with anymore.

I do know that Russian flew MiGs (MiG-21s I think) against Isreali pilots right at the end of the 6 day war (maybe it was the War of Attrition?) but the IAF wiped the floor with them using Phantoms and Mirage IIIs.

EDIT: Oh and their were shoot downs of PLAAF MiGs during 'Nam. But I don't think the PLAAF was actively trying to intervene they were just testing our defenses and things got out of hand.

[nikimcbee]

I do know that Russian flew MiGs (MiG-21s I think) against Isreali pilots right at the end of the 6 day war (maybe it was the War of Attrition?) but the IAF wiped the floor with them using Phantoms and Mirage IIIs.

I didn't know that. I have several books on the NVAAF. According to the books, they all went to the USSR to train.

[TLAM Strike]

I didn't know that. I have several books on the NVAAF. According to the books, they all went to the USSR to train.
Yea they were flying MiG-21s.

Here is a link:

http://webspace.webring.com/people/js/skythe_99/operate5.htm

I remember fondly flying this mission in Jaine's IAF.


BTW the pilots who downed "Col. Tomb" believe he was really a Soviet pilot. There was also a Thud pilot who claimed he saw a NVAF F-6 FARMER being flown by a pilot with blond hair and blue eyes but I doubt it since any modern combat pilot would be wearing a helmet.

[nikimcbee]

Yea they were flying MiG-21s.

Here is a link:

http://webspace.webring.com/people/js/skythe_99/operate5.htm

I remember fondly flying this mission in Jaine's IAF.


BTW the pilots who downed "Col. Tomb" believe he was really a Soviet pilot. There was also a Thud pilot who claimed he saw a NVAF F-6 FARMER being flown by a pilot with blond hair and blue eyes but I doubt it since any modern combat pilot would be wearing a helmet.

That is exactly who I'm thinking of. The NVAAF totally deny his existance. (no such pilot):hmmm:

[Raptor1]

I think the Su-27 Flanker needs a little love in this thread.

The Ethiopian Air Force (most likely using Russian or Ukrainian mercs) shot down 7 MiG-29 using the Flanker between 1999 and 2000.

Aye, like I said earlier, it's probably more suited to modern air warfare than the MiG-29 is.

[XabbaRus]

I'm sure I read that their were Soviet pilots flying Mig-15s in the Korean war and they were a lot better than their NORK counterparts.

Here we go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_Alley

[Sailor Steve]

This should help.
http://www.acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html

[Freiwillige]

A few misunderstandings so far on the subject. First and foremost is the argument that the F-14 and F-15 were designed for different roles.

F-14 -"The F-14 was designed as both and air superiority fighter and a long range interceptor" -Gruman avaition

F-15 -Air superiority fighter and interceptor.

Not a whole lot of differance if one excludes the carrier ops and range.

Another issue is the mismatched engines on the Tomcat. The TF-30 was a temporary assignment to the Tomcat that was supposed to be replaced when the Navy\Army TFX engine programe was completed in the near future.

From wikipedia-The TF30 engine left much to be desired both in power and reliability. John Lehman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lehman), Secretary of the Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Navy), told Congress that the F-14/TF30 combination was "probably the worst engine/airframe mismatch we have had in years" and said that the TF30 was "a terrible engine",[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-Dorr_p.50.-23)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-Sgarlato_p40-46-25) with F-14 accidents attributed to engine failures accounting for 28% of overall losses. Cracks in the turbines were dangerous to the point that the engine bay was reinforced in case of blade failure, to help reduce damage to the rest of the aircraft. The TF30 engines were also extremely prone to compressor stalls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressor_stall), which could easily result in loss of control due to the wide engine spacing, which causes severe yaw oscillations and can lead to an unrecoverable flat spin. At specific altitudes, the exhaust from a launched missile could cause the engine compressor to stall. This resulted in the development of a bleed system that temporarily reduced the power of the engine and blocked the frontal intake during missile launch. The overall thrust-to-weight ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio) at maximum takeoff weight is around 0.56, which does not compare favorably with the F-15A's ratio of 0.85.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-Spick_p81-28) Even so, the aircraft had an official maximum speed of Mach 2.34.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-Spick_p81-28) Internal fuel capacity is 2,400 USgal (9,100 l): 290 USgal (1,100 l) in each wing, 690 USgal (2,600 l) in a series of tanks aft of the cockpit, and a further 457 USgal (1,730 l) in two feeder tanks. It can carry two 267 USgal (1,010 l) external drop tanks under the engine intakes.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-baugher2-11) There is also an air-to-air refueling probe, which folds into the starboard nose. The F-14 with General Electric F110 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F110) engines had a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.73 at maximum weight and 0.88 at normal takeoff weight.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-Spick_p81-28)

So with the upated GE-F110 engine its thrust to weight ratio exceeds that of the F-15 at normal weight!

Another issue is G limits. F-14's had a set G limit of 6.5 by the navy to prolong the lifespan of their very expensive investment. Grumman listed it higher but of course with quicker airframe wear.

Hear is a cool story of an F-14 RIO called (10G face meet knee!) A humorous story and proof that the aircraft could easily meet 10+ G's

http://instapinch.com/?p=1003

And finally the sad part is that the navy wasn't supposed to retire the Tomcat's till 2014.....then 2010 and then with little warning it was pulled from opperational duty in 2006:nope:

The reason is simple. Few F-14's were uprated to the D model so allot of A's were still out there. The navy couldn't budget the F-18 superhornet and the F-14 upgrades let alone the new tomcat 21's that were about to be procured!:nope::nope:

The real reason that they were forced to the boneyard ahead of their time is that maintenance was a bitch on such a complex machine.

For example the F-14's got an average of 80 Mantainance man hours per 1 flight hour!!!

The F-18 cut that down to 20. And the bean counters notice things like that.

Why have good enough when you can have almost good enough for allot less? :har:

Those same Bean counters have canceled most of our F-22's.


And lastly. F-14's in the Iraq Iran conflict have counted 120+ Iraqi aircraft shot down and many were long range Phoenix kiils against fighters! 77 missiles were fired for about a 70% hit range. Not bad since it was first generation Phoenix missiles!!!!

No F-14's were lost:salute:

[TLAM Strike]

And lastly. F-14's in the Iraq Iran conflict have counted 120+ Iraqi aircraft shot down and many were long range Phoenix kiils against fighters! 77 missiles were fired for about a 70% hit range. Not bad since it was first generation Phoenix missiles!!!!

No F-14's were lost:salute:

Incorrect up to 11 Tomcats may have been downed by the Iraqis, according to Iraqi claims.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml

One was definitely shot down by their own air defenses.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml

Some may have crashed in combat due to failure.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

http://www.iiaf.net/aircraft/jetfighters/F14/f14.html

[Freiwillige]

Thanks TLAM I did not know that. The truth may never be known. Was an interesting read.:rock:

[McBeck]

Hear is a cool story of an F-14 RIO called (10G face meet knee!) A humorous story and proof that the aircraft could easily meet 10+ G's

http://instapinch.com/?p=1003


"As soon as I turned my head down and to the left to find that VSL switch, Doc rolled the aircraft right and snapped a good 10 g’s on the aircraft in getting the jet moved around to face the new threat. Which meant my head, leaning down and looking to the left side console for this idiotic little inch-high switch, instantaneously became fused with and part of my left knee."
:har::har:

[Herr-Berbunch]

For me:

F14 - To fly in
F15 - To look at
F16 - No chance, only one engine!
F18 - To see painted blue and in formation

[Oberon]

The mismatch between frame and engine in the F-14 probably accounts for the video of one disintegrating when going supersonic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_1s4epa1Vk

Looking at the Martin Baker flyby site ( http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/f-14.htm ) has a long list, but I think a fair bit of that is the standard risk in carrier ops.

Actually, just found that particular incident on the site, and here's the pilots view:

"
"At approximately 500 feet and 1.1 mach our Tomcat suddenly disintegrated beneath us. Buga’s cockpit was on fire, and he made the decision to get us out. The plane had exploded into two large pieces and a million smaller ones, and Buga ejected us out of the cockpit section, which was all that remained of the front half of the jet. As my parachute opened I looked to my right and saw burning wreckage spiralling down towards the water. I couldn’t tell the top of the jet from the bottom as Lion 112 was completely engulfed in flames. The only thing I could discern was that the big piece was part of a fuselage with two wings poking out of the middle of a large fireball. During the investigation the Mishap Board informed us that the mostly likely cause of the crash was an engine oil sump tank failure followed by catastrophic failure of an engine. My personal opinion to this day is that nobody knew what really caused the jet to detonate. In the immortal words of Gus Grisom, “It just blew,” and by the grace of God we survived."

Neil Jennings,
CDR, USN (ret)
in email 8th September 2009"



Both pilot and RIO survived, but with burns to their upper body.

[MaddogK]

I think the Su-27 Flanker needs a little love in this thread.

The Ethiopian Air Force (most likely using Russian or Ukrainian mercs) shot down 7 MiG-29 using the Flanker between 1999 and 2000.

Wasn't a choice or it woulda been my pick, but the F-22 pwn's all these.

[Oberon]

Wasn't a choice or it woulda been my pick, but the F-22 pwn's all these.

Pwns your wallet too... :hmmm:

[Growler]

Pwns your wallet too... :hmmm:

And that of every other person in the US, too. "What's in your wallet?" Not much, thanks.

[MaddogK]

Who cares as long as one will kill ten of them others. The best has never been cheap, invisibility does come with a pricetag.

[Krauter]

I care, when the four aircraft the poll is about can do the same job for half the price.

[TLAM Strike]

Who cares as long as one will kill ten of them others. The best has never been cheap.

When the enemy starts to have 11 of the others for each F-22 we got, I get nervous.

[MaddogK]

I care, when the four aircraft the poll is about can do the same job for half the price.

LOL, 3 of the 4 are EOL.
..well maybe not the F-16, she's still got some life left in her.

[Krauter]

Exactly,

Also, considering an aircraft can only carry so many missiles, who cares if the F-22 can take down 10? If theres 20 of them what's the aircraft going to do when all 20 of those fighters shoot their missiles at 1(2 F-22 with wingman)?

Edit: Forgive my ignorance but what is EOL?

[Growler]

Ah, the Fulda debate: Quality vs. Quantity.

I think it was David Drake who commented in the notes for the Team Yankee comic adaptation in the 80's: "I think of those excellent Panthers - and the waves of T-34s that rolled over them."

EOL: End Of Life

[MaddogK]

EOL-end of life.

What good are 30 y/o aircraft against modern S/A missles ? Visible aircraft get shot down, invisible ones don't (ask a F-117 driver). This is why I think the F-22 project would save money in the long run, ya can't hit what you can't find.

[Krauter]

Aah thank you Growler :)

I do agree that Quality will get you somewhere.

But as someone (for the life of me I'm bad at remembering names) stated: Quantity has a Quality of its own.

I do agree the f-22 may be the best out of all of them in a 1v1 fight (the same as a Panther might decimate a T-34, etc) BUT in the real world, you're never going to get a fair and equal 1v1 fight.

Is there AWACS involved? Who's side is it on? Do both sides haveAWACS and instead attempt to negate that bird first? Too many variables.

Edit: All aircraft are vulnerable to SAMs/Radar, it is only a matter of time before Radar burns through jamming, etc. It is impossible (to my knowledge) to be completely undetectable from Radar/IR detectors

[Raptor1]

Don't forget that the T-34, besides being (eventually) reliable, cheap and simple to produce, was also a highly effective tank. A Panther was in no way guaranteed to win one on one if the crew was good.

Cheaper equipment doesn't necessarily mean it will only win with numbers.

(ask a F-117 driver)

Yup, ask the pilot of 82-0806...

[Krauter]

There enters another variable, is the crew adequately trained? Is equipment being maintained?

Don't forget that tiny squishy human being operating the machine is as integral to the weapons systems or engines.

[Growler]

Don't forget that the T-34, besides being (eventually) reliable, cheap and simple to produce, was also a highly effective tank. A Panther was in no way guaranteed to win one on one if the crew was good.

Cheaper equipment doesn't necessarily mean it will only win with numbers.



True, true. Drake was making the comparison, in this case, between the already excellent 1st Gen M1 Abrams (105mm) versus the then-believed-to-be Soviet front line tanks, the T-80 and, secondarily, the T-72, asserting the the US doctrine of a high-quality, high-maintenance, expensive MBT that could knock out 10 lower-quality, cheaper Threat armor would be undone by that 11th OPFOR tank.

Taken another way, if there's thirteen hundred guys charging your position who will be there in seconds, even a 1200 rpm machine gun won't help you.

[MaddogK]

Guess I got off topic- to the poll (last generation of fighters)- king of the skies,
Hard to knock the F-15 as it was designed to counter a mythical Soviet superplane (the Foxbat) so it was a from the ground up designed A/A fighter,
BUT
in a straight-up guns dogfight I'd go with the Falcon.

BVR I'm thinking the Phoenix (F-14) will win. The Hornet is not a specialist in any of these areas, as will the F-35 when she's finally ready to deploy.

[Krauter]

That's the problem with this poll (in my opinion).

Each aircraft is (save for the Hornet) designed for a particular mission so they if one cannot win in one aspect, it would simply be wiser to switch over to the area where it has an advantage.

The only multi-role fighter of the bunch, simply because it is a multi-role fighter, and thus average at every area, is the worst there! Simply for the fact that it does not truly excel in any area but is rather average.

[TLAM Strike]

That's the problem with this poll (in my opinion).

Each aircraft is (save for the Hornet) designed for a particular mission so they if one cannot win in one aspect, it would simply be wiser to switch over to the area where it has an advantage.

The only multi-role fighter of the bunch, simply because it is a multi-role fighter, and thus average at every area, is the worst there! Simply for the fact that it does not truly excel in any area but is rather average.

Exactly, look at what the Hornet replaces: The Skyhawk and Corsair! Sure the Hornet isn't the best fighter around but its an awesome A/A capable strike bomber!

What good are 30 y/o aircraft against modern S/A missles ? Visible aircraft get shot down, invisible ones don't (ask a F-117 driver). This is why I think the F-22 project would save money in the long run, ya can't hit what you can't find. A F-117 got shot down by a 30 year old SA-3! My philosophy is that Stealth doesn't' matter of all the enemy's radar sites have been pulverized by ARMs.

Ah, the Fulda debate: Quality vs. Quantity.

I think it was David Drake who commented in the notes for the Team Yankee comic adaptation in the 80's: "I think of those excellent Panthers - and the waves of T-34s that rolled over them."

EOL: End Of Life

Took me a second to notice you mentioned Fulda... I was googling for when T-34 Mentors fought F-9F Panthers... :haha:

[MaddogK]

Don't forget that the T-34, besides being (eventually) reliable, cheap and simple to produce, was also a highly effective tank. A Panther was in no way guaranteed to win one on one if the crew was good.

Cheaper equipment doesn't necessarily mean it will only win with numbers.



Yup, ask the pilot of 82-0806...

1 loss, shot down while likely being tracked by mk. 1 eyeball, at the planes most vulnerable time- when the bay doors were opened.
It is believed that the SA-3 crews and spotters were able to locate and track F-117A 82-806 visually

Thats what I would call a lucky shot.

[Krauter]

It still proves that Stealth is not the all winning aspect. Why send in a small strike team of stealth fighters when you could just send in a Wild Weasel Group escorting a strike group?

Yes I know logistics play a part, but for the sake of argument let's say the logistical costs are the same?

[Growler]

Took me a second to notice you mentioned Fulda... I was googling for when T-34 Mentors fought F-9F Panthers... :haha:

Now that'd be a fight.

[MaddogK]

Sure, stealth isn't an all-winning strategy but the idea is to minimize potential losses while inflicting the most damage, and a stealth aircraft increases the chance of that. It's a nice edge to have. Why risk 10 pilots and aircraft when 4 stealth a/c can do the job with less risk.

[Krauter]

True, but this is coming outside of the original question of which is the best fighter? Sure the stealth fighters are good pinpoint bombers. But what happens when you really need to move some mud? That bombay can only hold so much ordinance and bomb racks only increase your radar signature (not to mention make you even more un-maneouvrable)

[CaptainHaplo]

Of the 4, the F14 was the peak of the class against any of the other 3 under 1 condition - if it used the "modified" phoenix that stood a solid chance to hit a fighter. Why? Because with it, the others never get close enough to shoot. Dead sooner is a good thing...

For beauty, the F/A 18 SH is unmistakeably the crowned queen in my book. Add in her multirole ability, cost savings vs the others, and she comes out as the all around top.

F15 and F16? The F15 looks a little hornetish, but just lacks the style. The canted vertical stabilizers for example. It just doesn't have the lines. The F16? Ugh....

[MaddogK]

To move serious mud the B-52 has proven that quantity dropped from high orbit wins.
:)
Besides, the F-117 wasn't designed to take out the entire neighborhood, just 1 house, and be gone before anyone knows WTF just happened.
I personally like the low-level penetration method of the B-1, but it also is cancelled.

[goldorak]

Ah, the Fulda debate: Quality vs. Quantity.

I think it was David Drake who commented in the notes for the Team Yankee comic adaptation in the 80's: "I think of those excellent Panthers - and the waves of T-34s that rolled over them."

EOL: End Of Life

Its a false debate since one is not to the exclusion of the other.
But and this has been true since the dawn of times, in warfare quantity and logistics are paramount. Yes having advanced weapons will give you momentarily the edge, but against hordes of enemies you better hope to have some reserves.
You have to strike a balance between quality and quantity, americans in the last decade have shifted dangerously to the quality foremost, and quantity not so important (because each unit is costly very very costly).

[Krauter]

:haha: If you really want to move some serious mud just get a few W-41s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41_nuclear_bomb)

The problem with the "Jack of all Trades" mentality of the Hornet is that it never truly excels at anything. Sure it means cost savings, but that is not what is being questioned here. Any dedicated interceptor/fighter/etc will stick to that profile and defeat the hornet in that area.

Edit: Goldorak you raise a good point. A very good example of a dangerous shift towards quality is the Germans during WW2. Sure they may look nice and perform nicely against small numbers of troops, but eventually, if you throw enough material at them, they'll look the same as that burned out POS that's right next to it.

The problem however, is that the States have no true competitors who can try to beat them with Quantity in a realistic fight (save for the PLA).

[goldorak]

The problem however, is that the States have no true competitors who can try to beat them with Quantity in a realistic fight (save for the PLA).

I'd say that NK represent quite a menace.
A 1.x milion army is nothing to sneer at, and 50,000 US troups plus the the south korean military won't do the job.
Even air superiority by itself is not sufficient as the Vietnam war demonstrated.

[Krauter]

This is true, but how much of that is going to be used only against the U.S when there is an *apparently* angry China to its North also?

[Raptor1]

I'd say that NK represent quite a menace.
A 1.x milion army is nothing to sneer at, and 50,000 US troups plus the the south korean military won't do the job.
Even air superiority by itself is not sufficient as the Vietnam war demonstrated.

"Plus the South Korean military"? You mean the 500,000 South Korean army personnel?

The North Korean army is mostly junk, the North Korean navy is junk, the North Korean air force is junk. And the situation in Korea is vastly different to Vietnam.

[Growler]

The problem however, is that the States have no true competitors who can try to beat them with Quantity in a realistic fight (save for the PLA).

That'll do.

Estimates for US Population: 308M (Source (http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing))

Estimates for PRC military-age population: 381M (males alone) (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army))

While either is not a reliable source, you can still draw some pretty significant conclusions: the PLA may be able to field a military force comprised of more personnel than the entire population of the United States.

[Krauter]

:o time to brush up on my Chinese..

[Raptor1]

That'll do.

Estimates for US Population: 308M (Source (http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing))

Estimates for PRC military-age population: 381M (males alone) (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army))

While either is not a reliable source, you can still draw some pretty significant conclusions: the PLA may be able to field a military force comprised of more personnel than the entire population of the United States.

But can they train and equip them all, or even a large portion of them?

[Krauter]

There's that, but how complicated and difficult would it be to sustain operations with a force that large?
Difficult to say the least

[Growler]

But can they train and equip them all, or even a large portion of them?

Why bother training them?

Give 'em a sharp stick and point them - en masse - at a defender.

you couldn't even hope to nuke them fast enough.

[goldorak]

"Plus the South Korean military"? You mean the 500,000 South Korean army personnel?

The North Korean army is mostly junk, the North Korean navy is junk, the North Korean air force is junk. And the situation in Korea is vastly different to Vietnam.

Raptor1 : a bullet is a bullet, it doesn't have to be fired from a last generation M-16 to be able to kill someone. Even artillery guns can be "old" and yet deadly.
As for the NK navy, it is acceptable for their mission. Their navy is not designed to go out in the middle of the pacific ocean and fight it out with the US Navy.
For coastal defence its quite good, and lets not forget theor midget submarines which can be quite deadly as well.

[Raptor1]

Why bother training them?

Give 'em a sharp stick and point them - en masse - at a defender.

you couldn't even hope to nuke them fast enough.

And would they agree to do that? People don't charge in with sticks against machine guns without being terribly fanatic.

[Raptor1]

Raptor1 : a bullet is a bullet, it doesn't have to be fired from a last generation M-16 to be able to kill someone. Even artillery guns can be "old" and yet deadly.
As for the NK navy, it is acceptable for their mission. Their navy is not designed to go out in the middle of the pacific ocean and fight it out with the US Navy.
For coastal defence its quite good, and lets not forget theor midget submarines which can be quite deadly as well.

Oh, I know that, but you make it sound like there's a million North Korean troops facing some tiny force which can't possibly hold against the sheer numbers.

[Krauter]

Lets not confuse Jong-Ils DPRK with Stalins USSR.

These are different times. People may be fanatical or completely dedicated to a cause, I doubt even the basic Chinese or NK peasant would accept a pitchfork and orders "You run that way, we sit here and watch".

[Growler]

And would they agree to do that? People don't charge in with sticks against machine guns without being terribly fanatic.

And that is a critical flaw in planning a response. Never, ever attribute a societal value of your nation to another nation's military planning.

We also have previous demonstrations of just this scenario:
They came out of the hills near Unsan, North Korea, blowing bugles in the dying light of day on 1 November 1950, throwing grenades and firing their "burp" guns at the surprised American soldiers of the 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. Those who survived the initial assaults reported how shaken the spectacle of massed Chinese infantry had left them.
(Source (http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-chinter/chinter.htm))

[Krauter]

A chinese peasant 60 years ago is a lot different then one today. Another error is to not compare our modern society (modern in the sense of 2010, not advancement) to those of post WW2.

[Raptor1]

And that is a critical flaw in planning a response. Never, ever attribute a societal value of your nation to another nation's military planning.

We also have previous demonstrations of just this scenario:

(Source (http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-chinter/chinter.htm))

I see no demonstration of it. The Chinese in the Korean War fought with modern weapons, not with sticks, though they did have a deficiency in heavy weapons early on. Also, the Chinese did not overwhelm their enemies by relying purely on numbers, they used some very effective tactics which are usually misrepresented as simple human waves.

[Krauter]

I believe all their tactics were based off of a human wave though no?

It'd probably be better to say their tactics were more refined then a simple bugle charge as well as a lot more sneaky. I remember reading (sorry no source :( ) somewhere that in the opening fazes of the Korean War when the Chinese got involved the Americans were totally un-prepared for the onslaught unleashed against them.

[Growler]

To the modern weapons angle: OK, so a little hyperbole is going a long way. Modern manufacturing - especially in China (I'm looking at you, WalMart and Target) is easy. Arming that many people wouldn't be tough; shoot, I know some Americans who could nearly do so with what's in their basements. (More hyperbole, but not much.)

My ultimate point is this: If there's a lesson from land wars in Asia, it's this - if we fight them with our rules, we lose - big.

[TLAM Strike]

Oh no the Chinese and the numbers game again?

Forces of the PLA:

Active; 1,700,000
Reserve; 800,000
Tanks: 7,500
APCs: 5,500
IFVs: 2,200
Arty: 25,000


... you know what they call 7,500 tanks in the Air Force? Targets! :haha:

The Soviets had 42,000 tanks in the 1980s and we figured it would be just about even with our 6,000 M1 Abrams.

Unless we decide to invade mainland China or fail to establish air superiority we can handle the Chinese in just about any offensive operation they could conduct regionally. And forget about cross ocean attacks, that belongs in WWII. We got OTH radars on both coasts that will see surface group long before it reaches US shores.

Now short of them sending some ICBMs in to down town San Fransisco we don't have to worry too much about China hitting us at home (even if they tried that its not a sure thing). The reverse is not true, they are rightly concerned that we got CSGs lurking in the Yellow Sea. They know if it hits the fan those planes could easily hit their capital with bombs that burn sand to glass.

[Growler]

OK, TLAM. You won the war.


Now occupy that place.

[Krauter]

You don't occupy it, you create a provisional democratic government.

You don't think military commanders and politicians are that stupid :O:

[TLAM Strike]

OK, TLAM. You won the war.


Now occupy that place.

Any questons on the occupation of Mainland China and reeducation of its inhabitants should be directed to:

Office of the President of the Republic of China
Presidential Office Building
Zhongzheng District, Republic of China (Taiwan)

[Raptor1]

To the modern weapons angle: OK, so a little hyperbole is going a long way. Modern manufacturing - especially in China (I'm looking at you, WalMart and Target) is easy. Arming that many people wouldn't be tough; shoot, I know some Americans who could nearly do so with what's in their basements. (More hyperbole, but not much.)

My ultimate point is this: If there's a lesson from land wars in Asia, it's this - if we fight them with our rules, we lose - big.

Oh, so assuming you are piece together that many rifles (Do you realize how many 381 million is?), or even a significant fraction of those. How are you going to distribute them to everyone? How are you going to get and issue ammunition, food and other supplies, even in China itself, not to mention elsewhere? How are you going to organize this force without a huge officer corps which you can't simply conscript?

Also, don't forget someone has to stay at home to maintain production and grow food.

[Oberon]

Any questons on the occupation of Mainland China and reeducation of its inhabitants should be directed to:

Office of the President of the Republic of China
Presidential Office Building
Zhongzheng District, Republic of China (Taiwan)

http://www.asianoffbeat.com/CrazyPictures/taiwan%20legislators%20fight%201.jpg

[kirilkrastev]

This poll is not a joke? Or chart applies only to U.S. aircraft and not at all ... if the world rankings for the whole world does not think there is room for any F**:haha:

[Tchocky]

The reverse is not true, they are rightly concerned that we got CSGs lurking in the Yellow Sea. They know if it hits the fan those planes could easily hit their capital with bombs that burn sand to glass.

And carrier captains are rightly nervous about Mach2+ AShM's! I can't quite see a CSG coming out on top of a massed missile attack.
Whether the PLA have the ability to launch such an attack unmolested I don't know.

[TLAM Strike]

And carrier captains are rightly nervous about Mach2+ AShM's! I can't quite see a CSG coming out on top of a massed missile attack.
Whether the PLA have the ability to launch such an attack unmolested I don't know.

All those are streakers (high speed, high alt missiles) we have been working on defenses for those since the 1960's. All the PRC streakers with the exception of the YJ-12 must be fired from within or just outside of RIM-67 range. All must be fired from within the range of carrier based jets (and from within range of land based fighters stationed in Guam, and Japan).

BTW There are less than 200 planes capable of carrying the YJ-12, and less than 200 capable of carrying the other shorter ranged missiles. They are not all going to be tasked with antiship strikes in a war, some are operated by the PLAAF and not the PLANAF so might not be fully trained for it. They could hang some short range ASMs on their Flankers at the cost of not having fighters but that just means risking their best fighters in RIM-67 range.

I would be more concerned with the low alt subsonic missiles like the C-802 which can now be fired from submarine torpedo tubes.

[Jimbuna]

Back OT....the F-14 because of its long reach and the fact I like interceptors.

[Growler]

Gimme an F-16 and AAMRAM over a Turkey with Phoenix any day. ;)

[TLAM Strike]

Gimme an F-16 and AAMRAM over a Turkey with Phoenix any day. ;)

Did you know the Tomcat had two BVR missile options from day one, when it was retired it had three, the F-16 had none until F-16A/B Blk 15 ADF and F-16C/D Blk 50/52 came along in the late 1980s. :03:

[Growler]

Indeed; the multi-service Sparrow led to AAMRAM for USAF use, while Phoenix went to the USN for the Turkey. Difference is in flexibility - I can stage Eagles and Falcons and provide them with multi-craft AAM capability, but I can't do that with 'cats and Hornets & the Phoenix. They're also a lot cheaper than Phoenix - giving me more of them to put on the aircraft.

In Desert Storm, RoE pretty much ruled out most BVR capabilities on our stuff anyway; in this age of dissimilar warfare and the Iraq & Afghanistan war friendly fire incidents, I wouldn't be surprised to see a contraction in the range at which air combat is joined, unless RoE change drastically, or the situation does.

[TLAM Strike]

Indeed; the multi-service Sparrow led to AAMRAM for USAF use, while Phoenix went to the USN for the Turkey. Difference is in flexibility - I can stage Eagles and Falcons and provide them with multi-craft AAM capability, but I can't do that with 'cats and Hornets & the Phoenix. When the Falcon and Eagle first were deployed you could not do that, that was my point. It took 10 years until that was possible.


They're also a lot cheaper than Phoenix - giving me more of them to put on the aircraft. But the Navy operated more Tomcats than the USAF operated Eagles meaning that the Phoenix while more expensive could be deployed on more long range fighters than the AF could field with their cheaper Sparrow, until the strike eagle came out anyways then the AF had slightly more eagles.

Also the Tomcat could carry Sparrows instead of its Phoenixes and vice versa. Meaning it could be armed from same stock AAMs at its little brother the Hornet and more, from day one.

In some ways the AF was weighed down with the need to support a huge number of light fighters (F-16) at the expense of its heavy fighters (F-15). While the Navy had just a heavy fighter (F-14) and a equal number of Strike Fighters (F/A-18) that supported it. It comes down to the Navy having a missile that only half its fighters can use while the AF (if it had a Phoenix like weapon that only the Eagle could use) would only be able to carry it on 40% of its fighter jets.

In Desert Storm, RoE pretty much ruled out most BVR capabilities on our stuff anyway; in this age of dissimilar warfare and the Iraq & Afghanistan war friendly fire incidents, I wouldn't be surprised to see a contraction in the range at which air combat is joined, unless RoE change drastically, or the situation does. Same thing happened in 'Nam.

[Growler]

There's going to be tradeoffs - which, ultimately, is the reason for variety in air assets. The USAF can field B-2s because they have the Fixed Base ability to do so; the USN needs long-range BVR interceptors from carriers because it's necessary to protect the BG. The USAF didn't need long-range interceptors because it never expected long range fighter ops - the AF was building for a land war in Europe, moving mud and dominating the battle air space which would be only a few miles (relatively) from their bases, while the Navy had to be able to project force further, both to control SLOC as well as defend themselves. Hence, the development of the longer range Standard missiles, Harpoon, and Tomahawk as SSMs (and ultimately, ASMs) while the AF continued with shorter range AGMs (Maverick).

[TLAM Strike]

There's going to be tradeoffs - which, ultimately, is the reason for variety in air assets. The USAF can field B-2s because they have the Fixed Base ability to do so; the USN needs long-range BVR interceptors from carriers because it's necessary to protect the BG. The USAF didn't need long-range interceptors because it never expected long range fighter ops - the AF was building for a land war in Europe, moving mud and dominating the battle air space which would be only a few miles (relatively) from their bases, while the Navy had to be able to project force further, both to control SLOC as well as defend themselves. Hence, the development of the longer range Standard missiles, Harpoon, and Tomahawk as SSMs (and ultimately, ASMs) while the AF continued with shorter range AGMs (Maverick).

Well the USN had everything the USAF had for the most part, because once its carriers got where they were headed they would need to do the same jobs as the USAF jets already there.

Long range bombers: A-3 Skywarrior, A-5 Vigilante
Mud Movers: A-4 Skyhawk (Marines Too), A-7 Cosair II, A-6 Intruder (Marines Too), and AV-8B Harrier (Marines)

Navy and Marines both used the Mav. AF Used the Harpoon, and had its own LACM. The Navy also had a Steath bomber (A-12) in the works but it got canned.

[Freiwillige]

IF the F-22 was cut for budget restraints here is a viable cost saving

solutionhttp://gizmodo.com/5174595/new-f+15-silent-eagle-is-cheap-stealth-plane-for-recession+minded-warmongers!

Also doing allot of reading on F-14's and finding more and more out about the excessive ability to out maneuver its AF rivals in the A+ B and D models. (all uprated engined models)

For example the F-14 has superior high AOA\alpha capability's both in positive and negative angles. The pancake behind the cockpit provides 40% of it's lift capability and in fact during high alpha flight keeps the aircraft stable long after the wings themselves have stalled. Combine the AOA with the uprated thrust of the GE engines giving it a higher thrust to weight ratio of an F-15C (Combat load not fully loaded as the F-14 holds more missile weight and fuel than F-15) and you got a serious turner and burner because at very high angles of attack your lift as well as your thrust is holding the aircraft in the high G turn!

[Sailor Steve]

I was at an air show, and actually saw an F-15 come over the field pitched up at about seventy degrees and not making more than 30 knots forward. When he got to a selected spot (about 200 feet above a parked Harrier) he lit the afterburners and proceeded to accelerate straight up until he was out of sight.

I've never seen an F-14 be stable through a 70-degree pitch up.

With the same F100 engines, the F-15 has lower wing-loading (which means a superior turn rate), higher thrust/weight ratio (better acceleration and climb) and a higher ceiling and much longer range (both combat and ferry).

The Tomcat is a lovely aircraft, but the necessities of carrier duties and the weight of the swing-wing mechanism both provide severe limitations.

[Molon Labe]

Slow-fighting is overrated, anyways. I'm far more interested in who's got the fastest turn rate at 500 knots than who has the tightest radius at 150 knots. Rate kills, and the vertical is a bitch to a slow-fighter.

[Oberon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwTXPQfGCpQ

:03:

[TLAM Strike]

The Mirage 2000 should be in consideration for the boss of 4th gen fighters (Single Engine Category). She is probably the fastest at altitude single engine fighter around. She also has a greater climb rate and range than the F-16. :hmmm:

[MaddogK]

We making a new catagory ?
Disposables.
Mirage, Rafale, Gripen, J-10, 'bishi F-2...
<edit> oops, forgot the Kfir
Hmmm, Gripen.

[TLAM Strike]

We making a new catagory ?
Disposables.
Mirage, Rafale, Gripen, J-10, 'bishi F-2...
<edit> oops, forgot the Kfir
Hmmm, Gripen.

Disposables? Just because an aircraft is cheaper and less capable than a US build jet doesn't mean its disposable, just geared for a different kind of customer.

Look at a jet like the Super Etendard. Short range, has low payload and is sluggish even by attack jet standards. An A-7 could fly circles around this thing, and carry more weight in stores on one pylon.

Imagine if the USN or USMC flew the Super Etendard? :haha: They would be the laughing stock of the Pentagon!

But the Super Etendard make the Royal Navy look like fools in 1982! Our British friends like to tout that the Harrier suffered no losses and kicked the butt of all of Argentina's supersonic fighters... but the Super Etendard was never shot down and sank two ships.

Iraq launched 51 attacks with the Super Etendard losing only two jets too the ... wait for it... the F-14! Yea you need a darn F-14 to shoot down this piece of junk.

[Oberon]

http://www.psywarrior.com/exocet.jpg

Yeah, well, the Exocet didn't help... :damn:

Argentine pilots were damn ballsy though, can't deny that, their low level runs through Bomb Alley against our ships was damn impressive.

[MaddogK]

ok, bad chioce of words. I meant disposable because I've shot thousands of these kind down in falcon 4, I didn't mean less capable either as the rafale can be more than a match for the block 52 F-16 if flown by a skilled pilot.

Disposable in that they're cheap, and for the most part, plentiful.

Also didn't list the EF Typhoon, now there's a capable 'cheap' aircraft. (costs about as much as a super-hornet)

[TLAM Strike]

http://www.psywarrior.com/exocet.jpg

Yeah, well, the Exocet didn't help... :damn:

Argentine pilots were damn ballsy though, can't deny that, their low level runs through Bomb Alley against our ships was damn impressive.

I saw footage filmed from a RN ship in bomb alley once. I thought they spliced in some WWII footage in the documentary I was watching until I saw the tiny delta wings of the A-4 Skyhawk peeling off from its bomb run.

Got a craving to play the NWP Falklands scenario in Fleet Command all of a sudden... maybe after work...

[Krauter]

If you want to do dif. Categories, split them up by generation, role or number of engines perhaps? :hmmm:

Example,

Single Engine:

F-16
Mirage 2000
Kfir
?

Twin Engine:

F-14,
F/A-18 Super Hornet
F-15,
Mig-29
Su-27(and/or its numerous variants)
Tornado,

"Next-Generation Fighters"
F-22,
F/A-35
Sukhoi T-50Su-37 (if you consider it next generation)
EF-Typhoon
Dassault Rafale
Saab Gripen
S-37 Berkut (Not operational)

Or would this just ruin the whole thing of whose the boss as theres too many categories?

Edit* Might I ask, what is bomb alley? I presume its the space between to ships trying to hit an aircraft with AA fire?

[MaddogK]

MiG PAK FA

nyet, thats the Sukhoi T-50 (F-22 copy). I think the Mig project is dead.

Nice looking bird.

[Krauter]

Edited; thank you, I remember seeing pictures of it earlier in the thread, but for some reason I assumed it was the MiG PAK FA/MiG 1.44 Flatpack

[Jimbuna]

http://www.psywarrior.com/exocet.jpg

Yeah, well, the Exocet didn't help... :damn:

Argentine pilots were damn ballsy though, can't deny that, their low level runs through Bomb Alley against our ships was damn impressive.

As were the countermeasures/reaction to them by the Harriers :rock:

*awaiting TLAM responding in a Harrier bashing fashion* :DL

[MaddogK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HWdh8I_dNY

Speaks for itself.

[Jimbuna]

Not much of a defence to a SAM which has locked on.

[Growler]

I finally figured out what that looked like during that amazing display of aerobatic agility.


A clay pigeon.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually a plane that is stable through that kind of maneuver will be stable in a high-angle pitchout at high speeds as well. Being able to do that is actually very useful in dodging a SAM.

[Growler]

Actually a plane that is stable through that kind of maneuver will be stable in a high-angle pitchout at high speeds as well. Being able to do that is actually very useful in dodging a SAM.

A unique variation of VIFFing, I guess. I dunno, I think like a ground-pounder even after all these years. I see an aircraft sitting "still" in the air, and I'm seeing M-163s or Avenger SAM platforms turning it into a cheese grater. And I'd hate (read: love) to see what an A-10's GAU would do to it.

[Sailor Steve]

Good points, against which I will not argue.

[Growler]

Wasn't trying to sound combative - my honest apologies, Steve.

[Krauter]

Shouldn't need to apologize for defending your opinion in a debate,

The one thing I think is cool about this kulbit/cobra maneouvre the Russians can do (though apparently the F-18 Super Hornet and F-22 can do it also), is that with their aft facing radars they can theoretically take a snapshot at a target closing their six.

[MaddogK]

I kinda wondered if they could fire off a missle in the middle of the kulbit, I bet they could squeeze off a few gun rounds.

...I'm just sayin

[Diopos]

Gentlemen,
a plane that can momentarily "freeze" will most certainly cause a "headache" to the tracking system of any missile or pilot (:)) chasing it. The only question is if the "cobra" can be performed in "typical" engagment situations (if there can be anything "typical" in an actual dogfight!). Is is proof, though, of good aerodynamics, design, control tech and manufacture.
And if you don't like them Ruskies at least don't underestimate the French or the Swedes.
In the end what matters is how weapons/platforms influence outcomes. TLAM Strike was on the spot. The "inferior" Etandard, fired "modern" missiles and took out high value targets. Like it or not, it proved itself.


.

[TLAM Strike]

Actually a plane that is stable through that kind of maneuver will be stable in a high-angle pitchout at high speeds as well. Being able to do that is actually very useful in dodging a SAM.

Soon to be meaningless the days of the SAM are numbered.

Back in 2003 the DPRK lased a couple of our AH-64s near the DMZ. No damage but it could have easily blinded the air crew. The US, Russia and China are all fielding antiaircraft lasers. Soon all the jinking and fancy turns will not matter.

As were the countermeasures/reaction to them by the Harriers :rock:

*awaiting TLAM responding in a Harrier bashing fashion* :DL

Sure the Harrier was great at defending the airspace over its own fleet but 30 miles from the edge of it, nothing. The Harrier: its like a surface to air missile but it comes back.

For the record, the ARA jets fired all five of their AM39 unmolested and scored 3 hits. The second missile from the Sheffield attack was jammed by HMS Yarmouth. Two hit the Atlantic Conveyor and the last one was shot down or jammed by HMS Avenger (some sources claim the Invincible was hit by this mission but suffered only minor damage). If they had a few more air launched missiles history might have been different.

[Castout]

My sig tells it all F-16!

A hell of a nimble fighter and very very versatile too.

But you didn't put F-18 Super Hornet otherwise I'd think that as being superior to the Viper(F-16).

Plus F-15A was not originally designed a FBW(fly by wire) plane and weighs much more than a Fly by wire F-16. Fly by wire means that the F-16 is designed to have unstable flying characteristic to give it the edge in maneuvering so thus the F-16 is not only cheaper to purchase and maintain(single engine) but it's more versatile and much nimbler too!

To me the Viper on top of all those advantages looks absolutely FANTASTIC. Must say it's a single engine flying PORN.

[Sailor Steve]

Wasn't trying to sound combative - my honest apologies, Steve.
For what?
Shouldn't need to apologize for defending your opinion in a debate
Exactly. On top of that, I meant what I said - your points were good ones.

The truth is that all the "plane vs plane" debates are just opinion. Sure, there are extremes, but technology never remains secret for long and everybody benifits. I was mainly responding to the claim that the F-14 was superior to the F-15. My opinion was different, but in the end that's all it is.

[Growler]

For what?

I'm wound a little tight right now; reading into things more than I should, perhaps. Past month hasn't been the best, and the consequences are still shaking out.

Back on topic:

I have to admit that my A/C bias was always towards prop fighters rather than jets; they just handled differently. That's why I like the Falcon so much - that little bird handles more like a classic dogfighter than any of the others, with the possible exception of the Hornet.

Now, understand that my own experience with these aircraft is in simulations, which we all know isn't the same. But based on that experience, I plain love the F-16.

I've "flown" all of the a/c in the poll in sims - just not all in the same sim, which is a data collection problem - lack of consistency in programming and flight models. So I have to take that into account, which is why, ultimately, opinions are just that.

I can say this: In all cases, the aircraft is a tool, which in the hands of a skilled craftsman, may often beat a superior tool in the hands of an inadequate user.

Case in point: First version of Falcon 3.0, with the F/A-18 add-on, had a bug in the dogfighting (PvP) code which gave the Hornet a full complement of AAMRAM and left the Falcon with AIM-9Ms and -9Ps only, and started the engagement at 40NM. It was me in the Falcon, a buddy (B) in the Hornet.

As soon as the sim loads, he's at full burner and closing the range. (At this point, neither of us know about this "bug" in the PvP code.) I'm at about 90% power, not yet in AB, and watching passive radar - he's broadcasting, painting me, and making no secret as to where he is. He's still coming straight in; I've trimmed right and have him about 15 degrees to port. At 20NM, he lets fly with all four AAMRAM, figuring to put paid to the fight tout de suite by all but salvoing his long range stuff. (The genesis of the fight involved copious amounts of junk food, attitude, and a deficit of sleep, combined with the egging on of numerous "friends.")

I've got nothing to throw back at him, but that's OK; I've got four problems of my own to deal with. I do notice that he's boring in fast right behind the missiles. Since he fired them off 1-2-3-4, they're all pretty much following the same track - if I can beat one, chances are I'm going to beat all four. I watch the lead missile track as I accelerate the right drift, adding a shallow dive - still at 90% - to put the missiles high and at roughly 1030 o'clock. As soon as the first missile closed to about 3.5NM, I punched in full burner, executed a hard left rolling turn into the missiles, dumping chaff behind me - and 1-2-3-4 - the missiles sailed harmlessly by, chasing the chaff.

He'd been boring in, and once he realized his first volley struck out, he let fly with a -9M snapshot, poorly setup and rushed. I had turned to meet him, so the missile pretty much sailed right on by, losing lock almost as soon as he'd fired it. I chopped power and nosed up, a low-power Immelman, which left me above and behind the streaking Hornet. A quick drop of the nose and a half-roll out of the turn and I find myself staring at the back of the Hornet about 2NM in front of me, but separating quickly - he's still mainlining jet fuel, and I'm only at about 75% power. He starts a loooooong, slooooow right turn; what looked like a sort of lazy, What-Me-Worry turn as he's accelerating away.

I go to full burner and start closing, turning inside his turn to cut the range. Once we're close enough, I loose one of the -9Ms and watch it track right up the Hornet's starboard engine. There's a flash, and the Hornet sprouts a smoke-tail that stretches out into the distance. I chopped power and rolled out to the left, content with the kill as I listen to the sound card on his computer at the other side of the room start calling out "CAUTION CAUTION."

My other friend (P) goes over to (B) and flips the screen view to the one showing the A/C Systems damaged - and it's many of them, but not all. He's been left with an aircraft that's not falling out of the sky, as I thought. I flamed one engine; the Hornet has two. (B) starts to head for the deck and turn away, but passed his aircraft's nose - with his still-operational radar on - over my position as I headed away. When his radar hits me, the Radar Warning Receiver chirps, and tells me what (P) wouldn't say out loud - (B) wasn't dead.

At this point, I flip the Falcon around and close on the wounded Hornet, now limping away at about 1200' with smoke trailing behind it like a big grey "Shoot Here" arrow.

So I did.

The initial 20mm burst went past the nose, to which I hear a startled, "WTF was that?!" from the other side of the room. I said, "This," corrected my aim on the nose of the Hornet and fired. The burst struck the cockpit and headed aft, nose-to-tail, which gave his Bit--in' Betty a lot to complain about, and then nothing.

We still joke about this, fifteen years on. It's not that I had a better a/c; I had more "stick time" with the Falcon in this particular sim, while the Hornet add-on had just been released - no one had a lot of time with it in that particular iteration. (B) was convinced that the Hornet was superior that he ultimately challenged me to that dogfight. We didn't prove which was the better aircraft; we just proved that, for this fight, I was the better pilot.

[Jimbuna]

So does the Fairey Swordfish qualify for consideration? :O:

[TLAM Strike]

So does the Fairey Swordfish qualify for consideration? :O:

Why not its the best the British have right now... :O:

[Jimbuna]

Why not its the best the British have right now... :O:

You may well be right :DL


:damn::damn::damn:

[Growler]

Worked at Taranto - and gave the Japanese all the ideas they needed for a little inlet in Oahu, too.

[TLAM Strike]

Worked at Taranto ...
... during the Channel Dash... not so much...

[Freiwillige]

So its time to crunch the numbers because they never lie when it comes to basic aerodynamics.

F-14 vs F-15 number crunching showdown.

Source wikipedia

Specifications (F-15C Eagle)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/F-15_Eagle_drawing.png/300px-F-15_Eagle_drawing.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-15_Eagle_drawing.png)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15C_with_the_conformal_FAST_PACK_fuel_tanks_060905-F-1234S-017.jpg/220px-McDonnell_Douglas_F-15C_with_the_conformal_FAST_PACK_fuel_tanks_060905-F-1234S-017.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McDonnell_Douglas_F-15C_with_the_conformal_FAST_PACK_fuel_tanks_060905-F-1234S-017.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McDonnell_Douglas_F-15C_with_the_conformal_FAST_PACK_fuel_tanks_060905-F-1234S-017.jpg)
Front view of an F-15C with the conformal FAST PACK fuel tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_And_Sensor_Tactical_%28FAST%29_Packs) on the trailers


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/F-15A_Eagle_drawing.png/220px-F-15A_Eagle_drawing.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-15A_Eagle_drawing.png) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-15A_Eagle_drawing.png)
F-15A Eagle's weapon loadout, which is similar to F-15C's config.


Data from USAF fact sheet,[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-F-15_USAF_fact-92) Jane's All the World's Aircraft[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-93) Combat Legend, F-15 Eagle and Strike Eagle[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-94)
General characteristics


Crew: 1
Length: 63 ft 9 in (19.43 m)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan): 42 ft 10 in (13.05 m)
Height: 18 ft 6 in (5.63 m)
Wing area: 608 ft² (56.5 m²)
Airfoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil): NACA 64A006.6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil) root, NACA 64A203 tip
Empty weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturer%27s_Weight_Empty): 28,000 lb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_%28mass%29) (12,700 kg)
Loaded weight: 44,500 lb (20,200 kg)
Max takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight): 68,000 lb (30,845 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney F100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F100)-100 or -220 afterburning turbofans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan)

Dry thrust: 17,450 lbf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-force) (77.62 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburner): 25,000 lbf for -220 (111.2 kN for -220) each



Performance


Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vno):

High altitude: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,660+ km/h)
Low altitude: Mach 1.2 (900 mph, 1,450 km/h)


Combat radius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_radius): 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission
Ferry range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferry_range): 3,450 mi (3,000 nmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile), 5,550 km) with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29): 65,000 ft (20,000 m)
Rate of climb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_climb): >50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
Wing loading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading): 73.1 lb/ft² (358 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio): 1.12 (-220)

Armament



Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_mm_caliber) M61 Vulcan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan) 6-barreled gatling cannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun#M61_Vulcan.2C_Minigun.2C_and_other_des igns), 940 rounds
Hardpoints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardpoint): Total 11 (not including CFTs): two under-wing (each with additional two missile launch rails), four under-fuselage (for semi-recessed carriage of AIM-7 Sparrows) and a single centerline pylon station, optional fuselage pylons (which may include conformal fuel tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_fuel_tank), known initially as FAST packs (Fuel And Sensor Tactical) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_And_Sensor_Tactical_%28FAST%29_Packs) for use on the C model) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,300 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:

Missiles:

AIM-7 Sparrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7_Sparrow)
AIM-120 AMRAAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM)
AIM-9 Sidewinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder)


Other:

up to 3× 600 US gallons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_gallon) (2,300 L (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litre)) external drop tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tank) for ferry flight or extended range/loitering time.
MXU-648 Cargo/Travel Pod - to carry personal belongings, and small pieces of maintenance equipment.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-davies_2002-66)





Avionics



Radar:

Raytheon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon) AN/APG-63 or AN/APG-70 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APG-63_and_APG-70)[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-APG-95) (Note: Although several F-15C aircraft were produced with APG-70 radar, all have been retrofitted to the AN/APG-63(V)1 configuration.) or
Raytheon AN/APG-63(V)1 or
Raytheon AN/APG-63(V)2 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) or
Raytheon AN/APG-63(V)3 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) (Note: Both active AF and ANG F-15Cs will receive another (up to) 48 V3 units between 2009-2015, over the existing 19 aircraft.)[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-USAFafaDEC2007-96)
Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-USAFafaDEC2007-96)


Countermeasures:

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Electronic_Systems) AN/ALQ-131 electronic countermeasures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasures) pod[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-ALQ-97)
Hazeltine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazeltine_Corporation) AN/APX-76 or Raytheon AN/APX-119 Identify Friend/Foe (IFF) interrogator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe)[99] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-APX-98)
Magnavox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnavox) AN/ALQ-128 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALQ-128) Electronic Warfare Warning Set (EWWS) - part of Tactical Electronic Warfare Systems (TEWS)[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-ALQ-97)
Loral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loral_Space_%26_Communications) AN/ALR-56 Radar warning receivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_warning_receiver) (RWR) - part of TEWS[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-ALR-99)
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems ALQ-135 Internal Countermeasures System (ICS) - part of TEWS[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-ALQ-97)
Marconi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Electronic_Systems) AN/ALE-45 Chaff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%28countermeasure%29)/Flares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_%28countermeasure%29) dispenser system - part of
TEWS[101] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#cite_note-ALE-100)



Specifications (F-14D)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat.png/250px-Grumman_F-14_Tomcat.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grumman_F-14_Tomcat.png)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/F14_2_Wiki.jpg/280px-F14_2_Wiki.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F14_2_Wiki.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F14_2_Wiki.jpg)
F-14A, VF 111 "Sundowners" (USS Carl Vinson)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/F14Missile.jpg/220px-F14Missile.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F14Missile.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F14Missile.jpg)
An F-14D launches an AIM-7 Sparrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7_Sparrow). A GBU-24 Paveway III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-24_Paveway_III) can also be seen being carried.


Data from U.S. Navy file,[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-80) Spick,[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-Spick_p81-28) M.A.T.S.[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-81)
General characteristics


Crew: 2 (Pilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviator) and Radar Intercept Officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Flight_Officer))
Length: 62 ft 9 in (19.1 m)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan):

Spread: 64 ft (19.55 m)
Swept: 38 ft (11.58 m)


Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 565 ft² (54.5 m²)
Airfoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil): NACA 64A209.65 mod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil) root, 64A208.91 mod tip
Empty weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturer%27s_Weight_Empty): 43,735 lb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_%28mass%29) (19,838 kg)
Loaded weight: 61,000 lb (27,700 kg)
Max takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight): 74,350 lb (33,720 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric F110 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F110)-GE-400 afterburning turbofans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan)

Dry thrust: 13,810 lbf (61.4 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburner): 27,800 lbf (123.7 kN) each


Maximum fuel capacity: 16,200 lb internal; 20,000 lb with 2x 267 gallon external tanks[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-Spick_p81-28)

Performance


Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vno): Mach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number) 2.34 (1,544 mph, 2,485 km/h) at high altitude
Combat radius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_radius): 500 nmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile) (575 mi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile#Statute_mile), 926 km)
Ferry range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferry_range): 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km)
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29): 50,000 ft (15,200 m)
Rate of climb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_climb): >45,000 ft/min (229 m/s)
Wing loading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading): 113.4 lb/ft² (553.9 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio): 0.91

Armament



Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_mm_caliber) M61 Vulcan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan) 6-barreled gatling cannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun#M61_Vulcan.2C_Minigun.2C_and_other_des igns), with 675 rounds
Hardpoints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardpoint): 10 total: 6× under-fuselage, 2× under nacelles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacelle) and 2× on wing gloves[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-Spick_p112-82)[N 2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-83) with a capacity of 14,500 lb (6,600 kg) of ordnance and fuel tanks[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#cite_note-baug_F-14D-34)
Missiles:

Air-to-air missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_missile): AIM-54 Phoenix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix), AIM-7 Sparrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7_Sparrow), AIM-9 Sidewinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder)


Loading configurations:

2× AIM-9 + 6× AIM-54 (Rarely used due to weight stress on airframe)
2× AIM-9 + 2× AIM-54 + 3× AIM-7 (Most common load during Cold War era)
2× AIM-9 + 4× AIM-54 + 2× AIM-7
2× AIM-9 + 6× AIM-7
4× AIM-9 + 4× AIM-54
4× AIM-9 + 4× AIM-7


Bombs:

JDAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition) Precision-guided munition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision-guided_munition) (PGMs)
Paveway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paveway) series of Laser guided bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_guided_bomb)
Mk 80 series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_bomb#Modern_American_GP_bombs:_the_Mark_80 _series) of unguided iron bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_bomb)
Mk 20 Rockeye II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-100_Cluster_Bomb)


Others:

Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Pod System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_Airborne_Reconnaissance_Pod_System) (TARPS)
LANTIRN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LANTIRN) targeting pod
2× 267 USgal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_gallon) (1,010 l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litre); 222 imp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_unit) gal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon)) drop tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tank) for extended range/loitering time



Avionics



Hughes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Aircraft) AN/APG-71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AWG-9) radar
AN/ASN-130 INS, IRST, TCS
Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) upgrade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROVER)

More on these two soon!:salute:

[krashkart]

MXU-648 Cargo/Travel Pod - to carry personal belongings, and small pieces of maintenance equipment.

How much hooch will fit in there? :D

[TLAM Strike]

How much hooch will fit in there? :D
Quite a bit, IIRC it started life as a 300 gal fuel tank. :hmmm:

In a pinch they can also be used to transport people... :O:

[krashkart]

Quite a bit, IIRC it started life as a 300 gal fuel tank. :hmmm:

In a pinch they can also be used to transport people... :O:

Those who dare... :DL

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=179&pictureid=3389

[Jimbuna]

Those who dare... :DL

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=179&pictureid=3389

How cool is that :rock::DL

[Oberon]

Quite a bit, IIRC it started life as a 300 gal fuel tank. :hmmm:

In a pinch they can also be used to transport people... :O:

I've heard of that too, the chap who owns "Miss Demeanour'" or the 'Zoom lolly' as it's also known, keeps his change of clothes and any overnight gear in one of his tanks. I presume though that a balancing act has to be done with the weight in the tanks or the aircraft would develop a roll to port or starboard.

http://www.tim-beach.com/shore01/hunter.jpg

^ Miss Demeanour

[Growler]

How cool is that :rock::DL

Indulging in Dr.-Strangelove-ian fantasies has never been cooler.:DL

[TLAM Strike]

I've heard of that too, the chap who owns "Miss Demeanour'" or the 'Zoom lolly' as it's also known, keeps his change of clothes and any overnight gear in one of his tanks. I presume though that a balancing act has to be done with the weight in the tanks or the aircraft would develop a roll to port or starboard.

http://www.tim-beach.com/shore01/hunter.jpg

^ Miss Demeanour

Or it could just trim the aircraft to compensate.

[Oberon]

Or it could just trim the aircraft to compensate.

....

Shaddup... :O:

(I always forget about trim... :damn:)

[Freiwillige]

Regarding the F-14 vs F-15 argument I found that the wing loading for the F-14 is as follows

F-14A 92 pounds per square foot
F-14A+\B 94
F-14D 96

That is an impressively low wing loading for an aircraft its size
and goes along way to explain its agility in a knife fight.

I cant find data for the F-15!:damn:

Anybody?

Also I wanted to point out that allot of the F-14's reputation for being a dog comes from its flight restrictions imposed on it by the navy. Apparently those first generation engines on the A model were famous for compressor stalls at high alpha flight and with the wide spacing it could induce a flat spin (Top Gun style) So the aircrafts pilots were limited for safety's sake in high alpha flight.

With the A+ B and D models the restrictions were removed. Now the problem with that is that the A+ B and D models combined still only made up 20% of all Tomcats! Most were poor engined A models up to the end.

[MaddogK]

I found:
"The wing loading value is around 56 pounds per square foot of effective lifting surface." for the F-15E
http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/technology/airframe/64-wings

But,
"The F-15 wing was designed to be optimal for dogfighting at transonic and high subsonic speeds"

...giving the low speed maneuvering edge to the F-14.

[Sailor Steve]

Regarding the F-14 vs F-15 argument I found that the wing loading for the F-14 is as follows

F-14A 92 pounds per square foot
F-14A+\B 94
F-14D 96

That is an impressively low wing loading for an aircraft its size
and goes along way to explain its agility in a knife fight.

I cant find data for the F-15!:damn:
It was right there in the middle of all the crap you copied-and-pasted. Didn't you even read it?

Wing loading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading): 73.1 lb/ft² (358 kg/m²)

[Freiwillige]

Fine Sailor Steve you win. Well call it a draw!:O:

I guess in the end its close enough that it would come down to the pilot.

[Sailor Steve]

There is no winning here. :D I already agreed with the guys who say it's a matter of taste and opinion.

Besides, A Fokker DR-1 would outturn any of these in a heartbeat, but we know how it would fare against them. :dead:

[TLAM Strike]

Besides, A Fokker DR-1 would outturn any of these in a heartbeat...

But a AH-64 Apache would not only out run it, but outgun it and be able to out turn it. :haha:

[krashkart]

How cool is that :rock::DL

It's built like a tank. :DL

[Schwieger]

F-22.

[Castout]

F-22.

You stole my opinion . Give it back :shifty: