PDA

View Full Version : Sorta OT: Which is better - the F-15C or the F-14D?



erco415
10-19-2007, 06:45 PM
There's not a fighter pilot worth a ding who doesn't think his ride is the hottest around. Still, it's fun to argue over a couple a beers. So, even though the 'Cat's gone to the big boneyard in the desert, and the Raptor's rapidly marking it's turf, which is the better ride: the Tomcat or the Eagle?

Airmail109
10-19-2007, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by erco415:
There's not a fighter pilot worth a ding who doesn't think his ride is the hottest around. Still, it's fun to argue over a couple a beers. So, even though the 'Cat's gone to the big boneyard in the desert, and the Raptor's rapidly marking it's turf, which is the better ride: the Tomcat or the Eagle?

F-14D

Way cooler http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

heywooood
10-19-2007, 07:08 PM
hands down

R_Target
10-19-2007, 08:22 PM
Tomcat.

VW-IceFire
10-19-2007, 09:18 PM
Always been a fan of the Eagle myself. Thats a toughie...I'd be very interested to see what the actual numbers and experience of pilots who have flown both have to say. The Eagle is faster from what I understand but the Tomcat is better in close. Of course having the AIM-54 and the ability to defend a fleet by theoretically picking off a bomber at just under 100nm range is impressive.

Cajun76
10-19-2007, 09:25 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/55P-001.jpg

rmorgansmith
10-19-2007, 09:30 PM
Seems to me its almost a draw, F-15 has more power but the Cat has two crew members and that extra set of eyes and another brain would make it tough as far as SA for the Eagle. You could go on and on about this one, does the Eagle have ECM pods able to defeat the Phoenix at BVR ranges? Are you going to set ROE such that you need to eyeball the bogey as in Vietnam, etc.etc.

Viper2005_
10-19-2007, 09:58 PM
I'd put my money on the F-14D.

Waldo.Pepper
10-19-2007, 11:01 PM
http://www.speedandangels.com/trailer/player.php?media=carrier_takeoff-lg

http://www.speedandangels.com/trailer/player.php?media=how_to_be_fp-lg

WWSensei
10-19-2007, 11:15 PM
Hands down F-15C--and for a former Viper driver it hurts to give a nod to the Eagle- :-). However, the Eagle has more combat hours, more combat kills and no combat losses.

They don't even fly the F-14 anymore (I actually got to see the final two arcraft make their final flight to Oceana). In its early days it was under powered and the swing-wing love affair the Pentagon had for awhile didn't help on the weight issue.

It was OK for a fleet defense aircraft, but the F-18 was better. ...and before anyone starts spouting "but the Phoenix could kill you at 60 miles!" Ummmm, only if you were fat and slow like a bomber or transport. It wasn't effective against fighters--you didn't even need ECM as it wasn't maneuverable enough to be a threat. Gimme a Slammer any day...

I've done mock combat against 15s, 18s and 14s. Going against Eagle or Hornets I always had to be at my best. Against Tomcat's I always felt it was my fight to lose. As for having two crewmen versus one--pffft. They had two because they needed two to keep it in the air. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SithSpeeder
10-19-2007, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
Hands down F-15C...
...As for having two crewmen versus one--pffft. They had two because they needed two to keep it in the air. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Good funny posts today. That's really cool that you've actually flown with/against them.

* _54th_Speeder *

MEGILE
10-20-2007, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
Hands down F-15C--and for a former Viper driver it hurts to give a nod to the Eagle- :-). However, the Eagle has more combat hours, more combat kills and no combat losses.

They don't even fly the F-14 anymore (I actually got to see the final two arcraft make their final flight to Oceana). In its early days it was under powered and the swing-wing love affair the Pentagon had for awhile didn't help on the weight issue.

It was OK for a fleet defense aircraft, but the F-18 was better. ...and before anyone starts spouting "but the Phoenix could kill you at 60 miles!" Ummmm, only if you were fat and slow like a bomber or transport. It wasn't effective against fighters--you didn't even need ECM as it wasn't maneuverable enough to be a threat. Gimme a Slammer any day...

I've done mock combat against 15s, 18s and 14s. Going against Eagle or Hornets I always had to be at my best. Against Tomcat's I always felt it was my fight to lose. As for having two crewmen versus one--pffft. They had two because they needed two to keep it in the air. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Bremspropeller
10-20-2007, 06:47 AM
The Rhino out-mojos both of them...

http://www.paramags.de/f4front.jpg

BfHeFwMe
10-20-2007, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The Rhino out-mojos both of them...

http://www.paramags.de/f4front.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Viper2005_
10-20-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
Hands down F-15C--and for a former Viper driver it hurts to give a nod to the Eagle- :-). However, the Eagle has more combat hours, more combat kills and no combat losses.

They don't even fly the F-14 anymore (I actually got to see the final two arcraft make their final flight to Oceana). In its early days it was under powered and the swing-wing love affair the Pentagon had for awhile didn't help on the weight issue.

It was OK for a fleet defense aircraft, but the F-18 was better. ...and before anyone starts spouting "but the Phoenix could kill you at 60 miles!" Ummmm, only if you were fat and slow like a bomber or transport. It wasn't effective against fighters--you didn't even need ECM as it wasn't maneuverable enough to be a threat. Gimme a Slammer any day...

I've done mock combat against 15s, 18s and 14s. Going against Eagle or Hornets I always had to be at my best. Against Tomcat's I always felt it was my fight to lose. As for having two crewmen versus one--pffft. They had two because they needed two to keep it in the air. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Did you fly against F-14Ds or the earlier and more numerous F-14A and B models?

AFAIK the F-14D had newer engines which in addition to having more thrust solved most of the engine handling issues suffered by the A model with its "interim" engines. The D model also had a new radar (APG-71) which used technology from the F-15's APG-70.

I was also under the impression that the F-14D could carry the AIM-120.

Sadly there weren't a lot of F-14Ds (55?).

Bremspropeller
10-20-2007, 07:26 AM
Both, B and D were GE F110 powered.

AFAIK, the B were upgraded As, whereas the Ds were newly-built.
The D surely was the "ultimate" Cat.

They also split Bs and Ds by fleet-service (Atlantic vs Pacific), if memory serves me right.

Breeze147
10-20-2007, 07:56 AM
WWTCD?

What Would Tom Cruise Do?

VW-IceFire
10-20-2007, 08:05 AM
Ben Aflek would say "HAMMER DOWN!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AFJ_rsm
10-20-2007, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/55P-001.jpg


set your landscape details to perfect and water = 4 to get more realistic water than on excellent detail.

Cajun76
10-20-2007, 08:34 AM
I can make a request, but I think picture quality was set after the first 6 days.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
10-20-2007, 08:48 AM
F-15 has something like 104 victories and 0 defeats in air to air combat. Very hard to argue that combat record, so my vote goes with the plane build for the purpose of air superiority...the F-15.

S!

Phil_C
10-20-2007, 08:52 AM
The hometown hero...F-14.
I remember in elementary and middle school -14's flying over almost daily from Calverton. So many of the kids i grew up with had a parent who worked for Grumman too.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/Philski24/Airplanes/f14sunset.jpg

And this is the original:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/Philski24/Airplanes/f14org.jpg


I took the pic myself at the memorial park, next to the east gate of the calverton plant.. i just had to "retouch" the sky :lol:

AKA_TAGERT
10-20-2007, 09:13 AM
Ill take D's over C's any day

BillyTheKid_22
10-20-2007, 09:17 AM
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/grumman/f-14/021017-F-2034C-012.jpg



http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/grumman/f-14/021029-N-1955P-116.jpg



F-14D!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



http://www.wingweb.co.uk/img/aircraft/Grumman_F-14D_USS_Theodore_Roosevelt.jpg



very beautiful!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

horseback
10-20-2007, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The Rhino out-mojos both of them...

http://www.paramags.de/f4front.jpg Please--no smoking in the Forums!

My vote: Tomcats were sexier, but Eagles always had the combat edge.

cheers

horseback

erco415
10-20-2007, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Ill take D's over C's any day

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Sensei, care to educate us on how you'd fight the Tomcat?

About the 14D, C.J. Heatley says: "Let me get my hands on the D-model, and there won't be a fighter on the planet that can stick with me."

IIRC, the Navy's record with the Cat is undefeated. The Iranians, not so good. Here's a good question: have the Israeli's made the Eagle's rep?

mortoma
10-20-2007, 09:53 AM
People are saying F-14 more over the sentimentality factor ( F-14 has starred in major movies and is now just a memory ) but the F-15 did not nor will it ever need any movies made about it to "boost" it's image. Plus, the F-15 is still flying, that should tell you something. Hands down the F-15 Eagle. The true american bird!!

Oh, I refuse to jump on bandwagons just to be popular, like always. I'm a true individualist to the end.

mortoma
10-20-2007, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by erco415:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Ill take D's over C's any day

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Sensei, care to educate us on how you'd fight the Tomcat?

About the 14D, C.J. Heatley says: "Let me get my hands on the D-model, and there won't be a fighter on the planet that can stick with me."

IIRC, the Navy's record with the Cat is undefeated. The Iranians, not so good. Here's a good question: have the Israeli's made the Eagle's rep? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Who the hell is C.J. Heatley?? Aha! Exactly!! Point victory scored for mortoma once again.

Stew278
10-20-2007, 10:00 AM
I'd say the F-14 is better looking, but the F-15 is a better fighter plane. Even with the F-22's entering service, the F-15 will still be in use for a decade or more. The F-14 is already history.

erco415
10-20-2007, 10:04 AM
Heatly? Oh, just some noob Top Gun instructor. Oh, he likes to take pictures too http://www.amazon.com/Cutting-Edge-C-III-Heatley/dp/093...id=1192896245&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Cutting-Edge-C-III-Heatley/dp/0934738637/ref=sr_1_1/103-3533123-2704614?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192896245&sr=1-1)

jasonbirder
10-20-2007, 11:28 AM
Was the F14D ever integrated with AMRAAM? If not, that alone has to be a big point in favour of the F15C

berg417448
10-20-2007, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Was the F14D ever integrated with AMRAAM? If not, that alone has to be a big point in favour of the F15C

I don't think the F-14 carried the AIM-120. Sources that I've read say that it was tested but the program was killed AFAIK.

Airmail109
10-20-2007, 02:35 PM
In the USA id take the the F14 any day, flying off carriers is just so much cooler.

Brain32
10-20-2007, 05:22 PM
F-15 for me in the looks department, however I can't say which is better although I think that F-15C and E have more modern electronics(radar,hud, etc...)


BTW, since we talk about modern planes does anybody know if any F-16 model ever had CCIP for "dumb" bombs delivery?

Blottogg
10-20-2007, 05:51 PM
The standard "Fighter Weapons School" answer to all such questions is "it depends". A/A, I gotta agree with Sensei. For fighter vs. fighter, the F-15C was the more difficult opponent. Having flown neither, but trained vs. both, the Ego drivers did nothing but A/A. It made the community a little inbred, but they also got very good. From a performance standpoint, the F-15C has better P/W than even the GE motored F-14's. They both had radars that could detect targets well in excess of their weapons Rmax, and like Sensei said, the Phoenix was primarily for non-maneuvering targets (though its loft profile might make it difficult to detect it in time to defeat it by maneuver.) The RIO started out as a necessary crew member to run the labor intensive AWG-9 radar, but in later years his duties changed/broadened, with the APG-71, LANTIRN and the transition to "Bombcat". The Phoenix was phased out of fleet service several years before the Tomcat itself IIRC, though they could carry AIM-7 Sparrow. There was talk of integrating AMRAAM, but I think that was nixed given the limited remaining service life planned for the Tomcat at that point. The Eagle's AMRAAM is better suited to the full spectrum of threats, from bombers to fighters to cruise missiles. It doesn't fly as far (at least not yet) because it doesn't need to out range an anti-ship cruise missile like the Tomcat/Phoenix did. It just needs to have better F-pole/E-pole numbers than bad-guy AAM's.

Having said all that, the most humbling A/A engagement I've ever had was at the hands of an F-14 crew 2v1 vs. me and our weapons officer. They fought specific anti-F-16 tactics, and were one of the senior crews of their squadron (LCmdr driving, Cmdr in the pit IIRC.) They rarely got above 140 kts, and just used their higher alpha to point at us (and the extra pair of eyes to call the switch) and keep us both beaten down on energy. They wouldn't have wanted to do that in a bigger engagement, but in this training enviornment, it worked well. By the same token, F-18's could be easy or hard, depending on who was flying, and what their training emphasis was. The Marines at Iwakuni never gave us many problems A/A, but the Canadians out of Sollingen were another matter. Then again, were I a FAC, I'd want to talk to the Marines first. Though the Canadians were still more than capable A/G, the Marines trained for that more.

Taking off the fighter pilot cap (helmet?) for a second, and putting on my SecDef hat, my decision might swing to the Tomcat. The Eagle is strictly A/A, and has nothing more dangerous to offer A/G than harsh language. In this age of asymmetric threats, that just won't cut it. The Tomcat can also operate off of four acres of soveriegn U.S. real estate over 70% of the globe, while the Eagle needs a runway close to the bad guys somewhere on the remaining 30%, probably requiring a lot more tanker support. The only big minus for the Tomcat at the planning level is its HUGE maintenance requirement, which was in fact what doomed it to retirement.

P.S. Brain32, all versions of the Viper have CCIP (Continuously Computed Impact Point.) Confusingly enough, there is also a Viper improvement plan by the acronym CCIP (Common Configuration Implementation Program.) I flew Block 30's before they received targeting pods, and as such used CCIP and Dive/Toss as the primary visual delivery modes, with RLD (Radar Lay Down) available for night/bad weather.

Brain32
10-20-2007, 06:25 PM
Thx a lot, I've been searching for that info for quite a while, but whenever I searched CCIP(on Google and F-16.net) I got "Common Configuration Implementation Program" related results http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif while going for "Continuously Computed Impact Point" brought no results at all lol

amilaninia
10-21-2007, 08:24 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WWSensei:

It was OK for a fleet defense aircraft, but the F-18 was better. ...and before anyone starts spouting "but the Phoenix could kill you at 60 miles!" Ummmm, only if you were fat and slow like a bomber or transport. It wasn't effective against fighters--you didn't even need ECM as it wasn't maneuverable enough to be a threat. Gimme a Slammer any day...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WWSensei, I couldn't believe the U.S navy invested so much time and money into developing something as useless as you described above. Therefore, I did some research and found an interesting website that proves you are wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml

ANY TIME, BABY...!

jasonbirder
10-21-2007, 09:22 AM
WWSensei, I couldn't believe the U.S navy invested so much time and money into developing something as useless as you described above.

Why useless...A weapon designed for one pupose (Intercept of non-maneuvering subsonic Anti-ship cruise Missiles and where possible their delivery platforms (Badgers, Bisons, Bears)...extremely capable of fulfilling that mission...yet not an entirely different mission...
Pheonix was designed as a bomber and cruise missile killer at a time when Soviet Naval Aviation was the principle threat to US Carrier Battle Groups...

Korolov1986
10-21-2007, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by amilaninia:
WWSensei, I couldn't believe the U.S navy invested so much time and money into developing something as useless as you described above. Therefore, I did some research and found an interesting website that proves you are wrong.

Frankly, I'll trust Sensei over faulty Iranian claims. Keep in mind he wasn't saying the missile was useless; simply that the purpose of the missile would not be fitting toward fighter vs fighter combat. Also, the Iranian claims basically say that the Iraqi AF simply didn't take much evasive action - which makes it a piece of cake for any missile to shoot down.

amilaninia
10-21-2007, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">WWSensei, I couldn't believe the U.S navy invested so much time and money into developing something as useless as you described above.

Why useless...A weapon designed for one pupose (Intercept of non-maneuvering subsonic Anti-ship cruise Missiles and where possible their delivery platforms (Badgers, Bisons, Bears)...extremely capable of fulfilling that mission...yet not an entirely different mission...
Pheonix was designed as a bomber and cruise missile killer at a time when Soviet Naval Aviation was the principle threat to US Carrier Battle Groups... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Check the attached link and see how many well-maneuvering supersonic jet fighters were shot down by Tomcats and their Phoenix AAMs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml

Korolov1986
10-21-2007, 09:59 AM
Check the attached link and see how many well-maneuvering supersonic jet fighters were shot down by Tomcats and their Phoenix AAMs.


The article does not mention any "well-maneuvering supersonic jet fighters".

amilaninia
10-21-2007, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
Frankly, I'll trust Sensei over faulty Iranian claims.
I don't believe ACIG is taking sides by approving faulty Iranian claims.

Originally posted by Korolov1986:
Also, the Iranian claims basically say that the Iraqi AF simply didn't take much evasive action - which makes it a piece of cake for any missile to shoot down.
Not any missile, only a Phoenix, we are talking 80's
remember. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

amilaninia
10-21-2007, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Check the attached link and see how many well-maneuvering supersonic jet fighters were shot down by Tomcats and their Phoenix AAMs.


The article does not mention any "well-maneuvering supersonic jet fighters". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mirage F-1EQ,Super Etendad, Mig-25,Su22M-4K,Mig-23MF,Mig-21MF,...
how could you miss all these??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_208.shtm

BoCfuss
10-21-2007, 10:44 AM
those planes most likely never knew the phoenix was coming in on them until it was too late. Today, that would not happen.

KIMURA
10-21-2007, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
F-15 has something like 104 victories and 0 defeats in air to air combat. Very hard to argue that combat record, so my vote goes with the plane build for the purpose of air superiority...the F-15.

S!

I guess that's not fair comparison. The F-15 was used by an airforce that was involved in heavy air fights the F-14 never had seen. No one can argue, if the IAF would had use the F-14 in combat instead of the Eagle, the kill/loss ratio would be not the same.

amilaninia
10-21-2007, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by BoCfuss:
those planes most likely never knew the phoenix was coming in on them until it was too late.
EXACTLY. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Originally posted by BoCfuss:
Today, that would not happen.
Because Tomcat was twenty five years ahead of it's time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
ANYTIME, BABY...!

majnos64
10-21-2007, 11:17 AM
It is difficult to compare 20 years of technology advance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. F-15E clearly wins over F-14D from my view. But F-15C has not so strong engines so T/W ratio is nearly the same. F-15C G-limits 9+ Gs F-14D about 6-7Gs. F-14 has worse Hi-AoA maneuvering. And weaponry of F-14 isn't very good against fighters. Phoenixes are really bad maneuverers about G-limits 8.5Gs. Radar F-14D has more powerful radar. Even F-15C is probably better fighter.

amilaninia
10-21-2007, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
F-15 has something like 104 victories and 0 defeats in air to air combat. Very hard to argue that combat record, so my vote goes with the plane build for the purpose of air superiority...the F-15.

S!

I guess that's not fair comparison. The F-15 was used by an airforce that was involved in heavy air fights the F-14 never had seen. No one can argue, if the IAF would had use the F-14 in combat instead of the Eagle, the kill/loss ratio would be not the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just count how many Tomcats are in these charts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml

Korolov1986
10-21-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by amilaninia:
I don't believe ACIG is taking sides by approving faulty Iranian claims.


ACIG has made a remarkable effort to put some hard facts on the Iran-Iraq war, but that is no substitute for real confirmation from either the Iraqi government or Iranian government. Iran is apparently unwilling to disclose usage of either the F-14 or the AIM-54 in their service; ACIG came to their conclusions primarily via pilot interviews. Even at that, I'm not sure I'd trust either side.



Not any missile, only a Phoenix, we are talking 80's
remember.

Uh, pardon me, but by the 1980s, AIM-54 was roughly 15 years old and still had plenty of teething problems. The AIM-9L/M for example, had evolved into a excellent all-aspect missile by the '80s, and if you look at ACIG's Iranian air-to-air victories table, you'll notice that the vast majority of confirmed entries are with AIM-7E and AIM-9J/P missiles. Note also that Iranian F-14s are claimed to have launched the vast majority of these weapons.

In short, the AIM-54 wasn't some wonder-weapon that many people would have you believe; it was designed as a fleet-defense missile against a battle group's largest threat in the 60s and 70s (big, slow, lumbering bombers), which naturally changed as we moved into the 80s (and when missile destroyers started to come online in significant numbers).



Mirage F-1EQ,Super Etendad, Mig-25,Su22M-4K,Mig-23MF,Mig-21MF,...
how could you miss all this???


MiG-25 - No, not a hard maneuvering aircraft, but a supersonic performer yes. And a pretty shoddy aircraft as whole, too.

Su-22 - Intended as a ground attack aircraft. Not a fighter and certainly not a stellar performer.

MiG-23 - ****. Pure ****. Swing wing, heavy, and worth balls in a fight.

MiG-21 - About the only one that could fit your definition of "well-maneuvering supersonic jet fighters", but the MiG-21 wasn't that maneuverable.

The only aircraft in your list there worth a damn is the Mirage F-1 and the Super Etendtard, and at that still not stellar performers.

And lastly, as BoCfuss stated, they were likely unaware they were being targeted by enemy aircraft - which again, means any missile could wax them.

amilaninia
10-21-2007, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by majnos64:
It is difficult to compare 20 years of technology advance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. F-15E clearly wins over F-14D from my view. But F-15C has not so strong engines so T/W ratio is nearly the same. F-15C G-limits 9+ Gs F-14D about 6-7Gs. F-14 has worse Hi-AoA maneuvering. And weaponry of F-14 isn't very good against fighters. Phoenixes are really bad maneuverers about G-limits 8.5Gs. Radar F-14D has more powerful radar. Even F-15C is probably better fighter.
Tomcats never needed to get into dogfights, their opponents were doomed before they knew it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Taylortony
10-21-2007, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by amilaninia:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KIMURA:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
F-15 has something like 104 victories and 0 defeats in air to air combat. Very hard to argue that combat record, so my vote goes with the plane build for the purpose of air superiority...the F-15.

S!

They did some air to air combat against the new Indian SU30? with the USAF F15 and it lost nearly everytime (F 15)..

I watched the F15 go up against the RAF Hawk (as used by the Red Arrows) 2 F15 against one Hawk disimilar combat training on ACMI and the F15 lost, mind you that was a one off and one F 15 shot his own wingman down..

I also saw the F15 and F14 go head to head. The F14 locked on and was ready to waste the F15 without it being on the range display, however the range could not deal with Pheonix so they had to close and the F 15 won in close combat manouvering

Bremspropeller
10-21-2007, 11:53 AM
Su-22 - Intended as a ground attack aircraft. Not a fighter and certainly not a stellar performer.

MiG-23 - ****. Pure ****. Swing wing, heavy, and worth balls in a fight.

The only aircraft in your list there worth a damn is the Mirage F-1 and the Super Etendtard, and at that still not stellar performers.


I agree with you post with the quoted exceptions.

The Su-22 is not a fighter by any means, but it still could kick your a$$ close in.

MiG-23. Well, certainly the most underrated MiG ever. It will turn inside an F-16 at certain speeds and has a good vertical performance.


The Mirage F.1 certainly was the best a/c the Iraqis had and it was a capable little beast.
Avionicly, it was on par with any western a/c of it's time.
In fact, the F.1s raged quite well in the lines of irani Phantoms and Tomcats.
The K/L ratio was somewhere around 1:1.

The Super Etendard scared the sh1t out of the Brits when they went to war in 1982, so much for "not being a stellar perfromer" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

amilaninia
10-21-2007, 12:08 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Korolov1986:

Not any missile, only a Phoenix, we are talking 80's
remember.

Uh, pardon me, but by the 1980s, AIM-54 was roughly 15 years old and still had plenty of teething problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say Phoenix was invented in the 80's, rather being used in the 80's.
Again, Tomcat could see and hit a target far beyond any existing aircraft of its time, if you don't see the enemy first, you and your super agile aircraft will be history. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Taylortony
10-21-2007, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

The Super Etendard scared the sh1t out of the Brits when they went to war in 1982, so much for "not being a stellar perfromer" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It was not the Aircraft but the missile it carried that was the worry....... Namely the Exocet, as it could have inflicted a mortal blow on the fleet and the whole operation if it hit a carrier. One reason the Atlantic Conveyor was where it was... it was a decoy of the right size to be mistaken as a carrier.

Korolov1986
10-21-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I agree with you post with the quoted exceptions.

The Su-22 is not a fighter by any means, but it still could kick your a$$ close in.


The problem with that statement is that most jet aircraft, well flown, can kick another aircraft's *** close in. With that in mind, the track record of the Su-17/20/22 was ground attack, so I presume that is/was it's primary realm.



MiG-23. Well, certainly the most underrated MiG ever. It will turn inside an F-16 at certain speeds and has a good vertical performance.


I must be wrong then; most of my conclusions on the MiG-23 come from the book "Fulcrum: A Top Gun Pilot's Escape from the Soviet Empire", where it's treated as a treacherous, high performance aircraft that would prefer to kill you in a heartbeat.



The Mirage F.1 certainly was the best a/c the Iraqis had and it was a capable little beast.
Avionicly, it was on par with any western a/c of it's time.
In fact, the F.1s raged quite well in the lines of irani Phantoms and Tomcats.
The K/L ratio was somewhere around 1:1.


I believe the F1 was the best thing the Iraqi AF had, but the ACIG stats seem to claim that the F1 didn't do so hot overall. Still, I don't know much about it other than being a better performer than most of the junk Iraq had at the time.



The Super Etendard scared the sh1t out of the Brits when they went to war in 1982, so much for "not being a stellar perfromer"

The only reason the British worried about the Etendard was because of the Exocet missiles. That's it.


Originally posted by: amilaninia
didn't say Phoenix was invented in the 80's, rather being used in the 80's.
Again, Tomcat could see and hit a target far beyond any existing aircraft of its time, if you don't see the enemy first, you and your super agile aircraft will be history.


You have to be able to kill the target before he gets close enough to be a threat. If the target is aware of your presence and incoming threats, then there is always a possibility to counter those threats; this is especially true when you have a fighter capable of dodging lumbering anti-bomber missiles. Of course, you have to know the missiles are coming in the first place.

Viper2005_
10-21-2007, 01:05 PM
MiG-25 can fly at Mach 2.8+

F-15 can only manage Mach 2.5 (and then only clean IIRC). Therefore MiG-25 can certainly out-manoeuvre F-15 at Mach numbers greater than 2.5. The same argument could be extended to any other aeroplane it might face in combat.

IMO the MiG-25 is an under-rated aeroplane. It can't do the sort of thing that F-15 can, but it wasn't intended to, and this doesn't make it a bad machine IMO.

Its descendent the MiG-31 has some extremely impressive capabilities...

Blottogg
10-21-2007, 04:02 PM
Trying to draw useful conclusions concerning a fighter's A/A capability from the Iran/Iraq war reminds me of the scene from the movie "Head Office". For those that don't know what I'm talking about:

Max Landsberger: Since the 1984 oil discovery in New Guinea, we have sold the Bu!kais hill tribesmen 20 of our S-24 fighters. At $21 million per unit, that's $252 million. This has started a local arms race between the Bu!kais, and their local neighbors the Kla!klalas. Now the Kla!klalas also happen to be sitting an a large amount of oil. And now the Kla!klalas want to buy 20 of our new Slash X-Ray Ultra Pursuit fighters for a total of $480 million.
Pete Helmes: What are the chances of war between them?
Bob Nixon: Very good sir. Our spare parts replacement contracts could be very lucrative.
Pete Helmes: Who trains their flight personnel?
Max Landsberger: Well, as near as we can assess it... well, they don't actually fly the planes. They sort of roll them down hills, crashing them into each other.
Scott Dantley: Personally, I think that it's a shameful waste of incredible kill power.
Pete Helmes: Make the deal.
Bob Nixon, Scott Dantley: Absolutely.

I've never fought the Iranians, nor trained with them (I'm not THAT old), but I've flown with recent Kuwaiti UPT graduates, and it was one of the scariest experiences I've had as an instructor. I've also flown with Saudi F-15 and Tornado pilots who were very capable. Apparently the region has a "school of hard knocks" when they get the kids back home. As far as the Iranians go, there are a lot of claims of phenomenal performance on their parts coming out of the war, almost completely without any corroboration. Looking to the Iraqis to confirm that the Iraqis kicked their butts, or had their butts kicked, gets back to the Bu!kais vs. Kla!kalalas. Neither was exactly on the cutting edge of tactics or training. The ACIG's claim that "hundreds of formations" turned around at the sight of an F-14 seems at best a bit of hyperbole. They do mention that the pilots were generally treated as pariahs by the religious regime, with at least some purges occuring among their ranks. And even the initial cadre of U.S. trained crews weren't exactly vying with their fellow U.S. students for class "Top Gun". Left to their own devices afterwards, I doubt they got much better (though combat can be an excellent instructor... for the survivors.) They still trot an F-14 or two out at airshows, and you'll see a dummy Phoenix training round displayed from time to time. No doubt the Iranians have been resourceful, but I don't think the Iranian Tomcat is the place to look for an example of its ultimate A/A capability. To carry the argument of the Phoenix vs. a maneuverable (not maneuvering) fighter to the extreme though, by that logic the ultimate A/A machine during the first gulf war was the F-111. After all, 'Varks destroyed more Iraqi fighters than the F-15's did, by using LGB's, and the Iraqi fighters couldn't maneuver out of their shelters in time to avoid them.

@Brems: The MiG-23 is pretty much a one trick pony...it goes fast in a straight line. To paraphase Oleg, "What book did you read that said a MiG-23 could out-turn an F-16? Put down that book and do not open it any more!" It had a little higher max Mach than the Viper, so using Viper2005's (technically correct) argument, it could out-turn the F-16 at speeds the Viper could not physically reach, but I'd hardly use that to draw the conclusion that the FLOGGER was in any way more maneuverable than the F-16. Getting to those Mach numbers in reality requires a lot of planning, and any deviation from the plan (like combat) slows you down. The FLOGGER was a very labor-intensive aircraft to fly, and had several lethal corners to its flight envelope. Under the perfect conditions (permissive GCI enviornment, non-maneuvering target, very proficient pilot...) it could be effective. It wouldn't make my "top 10 aircraft to worry about" list though. By the same token, the Su-22 was basically a Russian swing-wing Thud. Rugged, fast, with a good bomb load. It had guns and IR missiles, but "turnin' and burnin'" was not the FITTER's game.

MiG-23's and MiG-25's were good in their respective niches (high speed at medium altitude/high altitude, respectively), but both required a lot of support from the ground, and neither had much in the way of maneuverability if they were forced into a merge, both being very G/AoA limited aircraft.

Tying this back into the original question, majnos64 correctly mentions that the F-14 airframe has a lower G limit than the Eagle (unless the F-15 has CFT's, but that's apples/oranges). It's qmax is also substantially lower than the Eagle's. I don't know how their AoA performance compares. Since I'm a Viper baby, my AoA wasn't my aircraft's strong suit, and as such I didn't waste too many brain bytes analysing other fighters' AoA... I always assumed it would be as good as or better than mine, and as a result planned my tactics around not getting low and slow.

Bremspropeller
10-21-2007, 04:26 PM
It was not the Aircraft but the missile it carried that was the worry....... Namely the Exocet, as it could have inflicted a mortal blow on the fleet and the whole operation if it hit a carrier. One reason the Atlantic Conveyor was where it was... it was a decoy of the right size to be mistaken as a carrier.

Yeah, but the S.E. was the only plane capable of carrying the Exocet among the argie Air Force (or was it the Navy?).



@Blotto, I've read that MiG-23 turned insive Vipers on some exercise between a european Viper user (A/B model therefore) and the polish or czech air force.
Appearantly the Floggers were quite a nasty surprise to the Viper drivers. Maybe they were just thinking of an easy kill and got waxed as things turned out the way they didn't expect.


Anyway, the USSR had MiG-23 aggressor squadrons that (sticking to energy tactics) would give their Fulcrums quite a fight.

Loco-S
10-21-2007, 08:39 PM
F-15 hands down, the F-14 is notorious for shooting itself down ( no joke, make sharp turn at high speed and it will break in half, not a good dogfighter)here is a video of it happening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX24EWBKrgY

not an isolated incident, several cats were lost due to similar problems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfM5FxnWPm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEgwaURofP8&mode=related&search=

berg417448
10-21-2007, 08:50 PM
That video show a burn through in the F-14 afterburner. It has nothing to do with turning.

Cajun76
10-21-2007, 09:16 PM
Any aircraft can destroy itself if you exceed it's limits.

Now, I may have posted a pic of an F-14 because it's sexy, but I think the F-15C would win a straight up fight, both BVR and especially close in.

Taylortony
10-21-2007, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was not the Aircraft but the missile it carried that was the worry....... Namely the Exocet, as it could have inflicted a mortal blow on the fleet and the whole operation if it hit a carrier. One reason the Atlantic Conveyor was where it was... it was a decoy of the right size to be mistaken as a carrier.

Yeah, but the S.E. was the only plane capable of carrying the Exocet among the argie Air Force (or was it the Navy?).

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct and they only had a few missiles, the problem the S.E posed was it's ability to close at wave top heights, lob an Exocet off and then scoot for home without being detected..... the threat it posed in a one to one combat situation was not really a worry..... The CAP Harriers practiced tactics against a certain friendly Airforce who also had these Aircraft as they sailed South I believe..... Indeed we used to send Jags up from Gibralter to carry out practice exocet runs on ships going south still several years later.... I had the pleasure of flying on one of these intercept flights..... 50Ft at speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Bremspropeller
10-22-2007, 05:34 AM
LoL, I guess you were busy watching out for flying fish, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

huggy87
10-22-2007, 02:34 PM
Concur with Sensei and Blottog. The F-15 is far superior to the F-14 at BVR. WVR it is a toss up. Both jets can hold their own when well flown, but neither is as good as a viper or hornet. In fact, both planes are kind of laughed at in the hornet community for ACM. However, the eagle is better than us at BVR. Although, the latest Rhinos I have flown can match and exceed the eagle. The earlier ones definitely not.

Korolov1986
10-22-2007, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
F-15 hands down, the F-14 is notorious for shooting itself down ( no joke, make sharp turn at high speed and it will break in half, not a good dogfighter)here is a video of it happening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX24EWBKrgY

not an isolated incident, several cats were lost due to similar problems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfM5FxnWPm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEgwaURofP8&mode=related&search=

The first and last videos are examples of the faulty engines powering the F-14A, which had a nagging tendency to go ape-**** at supersonic flight and blow up.

The second video is of a prototype aircraft which had a hydraulic pump failure, and not a wholly unusual bug to be seen in a new aircraft.

Anti_Ship_Fella
10-22-2007, 03:19 PM
ummmm i think the eagle cuz hes more like multirole....

ultraHun
10-22-2007, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by huggy87:
Concur with Sensei and Blottog. The F-15 is far superior to the F-14 at BVR. WVR it is a toss up. Both jets can hold their own when well flown, but neither is as good as a viper or hornet. In fact, both planes are kind of laughed at in the hornet community for ACM. However, the eagle is better than us at BVR. Although, the latest Rhinos I have flown can match and exceed the eagle. The earlier ones definitely not.

Just curious, in what respects can a Rhino match or exceed an Eagle?

VMF-214_HaVoK
10-22-2007, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
F-15 has something like 104 victories and 0 defeats in air to air combat. Very hard to argue that combat record, so my vote goes with the plane build for the purpose of air superiority...the F-15.

S!

I guess that's not fair comparison. The F-15 was used by an airforce that was involved in heavy air fights the F-14 never had seen. No one can argue, if the IAF would had use the F-14 in combat instead of the Eagle, the kill/loss ratio would be not the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure they could but they can not argue the fact that the F-15 is combat proven with a perfect record. Look at it how you may but facts are facts and actions speak louder then assumptions in my opinion. Im sure the IAF would have done just as well if they flew MIG-29s.

F-14 was to protect the fleet from bombers as well as other threats. The F-15 sole purpose when built was for air superiority over enemy fighters equipped for the same reason. If the F-15 today were to go up against the recently retired F-14 its pretty clear the F-15 would win. To each his own though. i believe those who vote for the F-14 in this fantasy match up are voting with their heart... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S!

Grendel-B
10-22-2007, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
It was OK for a fleet defense aircraft, but the F-18 was better. ...and before anyone starts spouting "but the Phoenix could kill you at 60 miles!" Ummmm, only if you were fat and slow like a bomber or transport. It wasn't effective against fighters--you didn't even need ECM as it wasn't maneuverable enough to be a threat. Gimme a Slammer any day...


Actually the majority of PHoenix aerial kills are against fighters and fighter bombers.

For example:

During the entry of F-14 and AIM-54 into Iranian service, the Shah ordered live-firing exercises with AIM-54s. The exercise was targeted against the Soviet Union, who was flying MiG-25 recon sorties over Iran. Five AIM-54s were shot at AQL-34 target drones, two flying Mach 2 at 60.000 feet. Four missiles hit the targets. After the exercise Soviets approached Iran and both sides reached agreement, that allowed the tensions to de-escalate, avoiding further conflicts between the two states.

On 16th September 1980 Iranian F-14s were vectored against fast moving contact, approaching Khark oil terminals at Mach 3. The MiG-25 was shot down by an AIM-54. This was the first confirmed kill by F-14 against MiG-25s.

On same day, another MiG-25RB was shot down on extremely hard conditions. The MiG-25 was approaching fast and was already within 113 km, yet the F-14 RIO was unable to acquire the target. A positive lock on was made on distance of only 70 km, almost inside the minimum range . A single AIM-54 was launched in snap-up engagement mode at 64 km. The missile worked perfectly and the MiG was downed.

On 2nd December 1980 one of the closest range shootdowns by AIM-54 occurred. Captain F. Dehghan of 8nd TFS was flying on patrol covering Khark Island oil teminals, when number of approaching bogies were detected. Lock-on was attained only from a distance of 10 miles, too close to the minimum range of the missile. The F-14 had to use the Phoenix, though, as otherwise the plane would have been too heavy for dogfighting. The Phoenix was launched on short-range mode and it managed to hit a MiG-21.

At 20th November 1982 two Iraqi generals boarded a Mi-8 helicopter to visit the front lines. The Mi-8 was escorted by two other Mi-8s, Mi-25, four MiG-21s and four MiG-23s, that were replaced by additional fighters when they ran low on fuel. The formation was spotted by two Iranian Tomcats escorting IRIAF KC-707 tanker, which was waiting for Iranian F-4 strike to refuel. The F-14s were flying race-track pattern, scanning over the front line with their AWG-9 radar. Captain Khosrodad spotted a large number of targets approaching slowly from west, already within AIM-54 range. Khosrodad ordered his wingman to keep with the tanker and attacked, first firing two AIM-54s, then two AIM-7E-4s some 10 seconds later. According to Iraqi reports, one MiG-21 and two MiG-23s were shot down within a minute, forcing the Iraqi generals to abandon their mission.

On 20th February 1987 an F-4 lured Iraqi strike force into a trap, which was snapped by two F-14s of 81st TFS. A AIM-54 was launched at very long range, hitting the lead Mirage flown by IrAF Brig. General Hekmat Abdul-Qadr. The Iranian listening posts recorded the leader of the accompanying Su-22 flight scream" F-Arba-Ashara! Yalla! Yalla!", with the seven remaining fighters turning and feeing. In English the leader had called "F-14! Run! Run!"

During late 1987 Soviet Union supplied Iraq with MiG-25BM "Wild Weasel" aircraft. The planes tested the ECM systems against Iranian Tomcats and attacked Iranian targets with new anti-radar weapons. The MiG-25BMs proved they could operate with impunity at up to 69 000 ft, until on the night of 11th November a MiG-25BM was intercepted by an F-14. The Tomcat fired a single AIM-54 in Home-On-Mode. The missile guided flawlessly but failed to detonate. Yet, the missile clipped the MiG-25's fin and forced the pilot to bail out.

During March 1988 Iraq launched a major attack against Iranian oil exports. On 19th March, at 0100, the first wave of Iraqi Tu-22B heavy bombers and Mirages, attacked Khark island and the tankers. Half an hour later second wave arrived without losses. The Iranian F-14s had arrived on scene for the third wave, though. The US Navy warships patrolling on the area recorded several AIM-54 launches, with at least one Tu-22B bomber and a MiG-25RB being destroyed. According to US Navy, it is probable that other Iraqi bombers were shot down as well.

...
and
...

It is estimated that during the Iran-Iraq war 1980-1988, from reports from pilots on both sides, guncamera/TISEO films, examination of wreckage, local and foreign intelligence and other sources, that on total the IRIAF F-14As scored 130 confirmed and 23 probable aerial victories. Iran launched possibly 70 to 90 AIM-54A missiles, and 60-70 of those scored.

All in all, almost 90 % of the AIM-54A missiles fired by Iranian F-14s in combat were used against Iraqi fighters and fighter-bombers. Only about a dozen victories by AIM-54s were against fast, highflying targets like MiG-25 or Tu-22. This performance was surprising, especially as the missile was designed for fleet defence, against large targets, not nimble fighters.

Iranian F-14 pilot, Major Ali, made following conclusion from the Iranian use of F-14s and Phoenix missiles:

"When I look back at our service record with the jet I look beyond its exceptional performance as purely an interceptor. We used it to escort fighters and tankers and flew many radar-reconnaissance missions as mini-AWACS for the protection of others in the air and on the ground. No air defence system has even proven so effective." - - Iranian F-14 pilots also regularly engaged superior enemy forces in traditional dogfights, using their cannon and Sidewinder missiles to good effect.

Grendel-B
10-22-2007, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
I guess that's not fair comparison. The F-15 was used by an airforce that was involved in heavy air fights the F-14 never had seen. No one can argue, if the IAF would had use the F-14 in combat instead of the Eagle, the kill/loss ratio would be not the same.

Uh. F-14s were in one very hard war, with extremerely hard aerial combats, continuously in combat from 1980 until 1988...

JG53Frankyboy
10-22-2007, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
...................

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Mirage F-1EQ,Super Etendad, Mig-25,Su22M-4K,Mig-23MF,Mig-21MF,...
how could you miss all this???


MiG-25 - No, not a hard maneuvering aircraft, but a supersonic performer yes. And a pretty shoddy aircraft as whole, too.

Su-22 - Intended as a ground attack aircraft. Not a fighter and certainly not a stellar performer.

MiG-23 - ****. Pure ****. Swing wing, heavy, and worth balls in a fight.

MiG-21 - About the only one that could fit your definition of "well-maneuvering supersonic jet fighters", but the MiG-21 wasn't that maneuverable.

...................... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and what kind of planes were the F-15's victims mostly ? ...........................

MEGILE
10-22-2007, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:



and what kind of planes were the F-15's victims mostly ? ...........................

Floggers and fishbeds

JG53Frankyboy
10-22-2007, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:



and what kind of planes were the F-15's victims mostly ? ...........................

Floggers and fishbeds </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and also "sometimes" unaware that they were aimed by AIM-120s .................... at least over the Iraq.

Korolov1986
10-22-2007, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and what kind of planes were the F-15's victims mostly ? ...........................

That depends on the conflict. In Desert Storm, F-15s killed more MiG-23s than other Iraqi types - about 8. If you throw in other conflicts in other airforces, MiG-21s make up the massive bulk of shoot-downs (Israel), with MiG-23s coming in second.

But the short summary seems to be:
#1:MiG-21
#2:MiG-23
#3:MiG-25
#4:MiG-29

Going from "most shot down by F-15" to "least shot down by F-15". More to do with aircraft availability and numbers I think.

Korolov1986
10-22-2007, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and also "sometimes" unaware that they were aimed by AIM-120s .................... at least over the Iraq.

AIM-120s were not used during Desert Storm. AIM-9 and AIM-7 were the only missiles available to F-15As and F-15Cs at that time.

Bremspropeller
10-22-2007, 04:21 PM
There were no AMRAAMS around in Destert Storm, all kills by F-15s were made with Sidewinders or Sparrows (or maneuvering).

JG53Frankyboy
10-22-2007, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and what kind of planes were the F-15's victims mostly ? ...........................

That depends on the conflict. In Desert Storm, F-15s killed more MiG-23s than other Iraqi types - about 8. If you throw in other conflicts in other airforces, MiG-21s make up the massive bulk of shoot-downs (Israel), with MiG-23s coming in second.

But the short summary seems to be:
#1:MiG-21
#2:MiG-23
#3:MiG-25
#4:MiG-29

Going from "most shot down by F-15" to "least shot down by F-15". More to do with aircraft availability and numbers I think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so, F-14 and F-15 had the same victims mostly.......................

JG53Frankyboy
10-22-2007, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and also "sometimes" unaware that they were aimed by AIM-120s .................... at least over the Iraq.

AIM-120s were not used during Desert Storm. AIM-9 and AIM-7 were the only missiles available to F-15As and F-15Cs at that time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry, my mistake
http://www.rjlee.org/aakill.html

erco415
10-22-2007, 07:35 PM
Some good stuff here. Havok's right about voting with your heart. My (entirely on the outside looking in) vote would go with the Cat. I've walked around both types quite a bit, and there's just something about the F-14. A neat vid here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqyI04WDZlQ

If I go with my head though, it seems that the 15 has the edge, if a small one. I base this on what the guys actually flying fighters think about it - it would be good to hear from someone who's flown the 14.

One thing that has been mentioned already, the Tomcat sure did bring a lot of capability to the carrier, which meant that you could have the first team pretty much anywhere you needed it. It didn't give up much for being carrier capable. The last 14's, I'm given to understand, could fulfill the roles of the 15C and E, quite well. I read in some aero mag a while back that the Russians thought the closest match for the Su27/derivatives was the Tomcat. (I'm quite sure you can trust what they're saying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

Korolov1986
10-22-2007, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by erco415:
If I go with my head though, it seems that the 15 has the edge, if a small one. I base this on what the guys actually flying fighters think about it - it would be good to hear from someone who's flown the 14.


No offense, but I think discussing anything logically regarding the F-14 is nigh impossible. "Top Gun" left quite a legacy.



One thing that has been mentioned already, the Tomcat sure did bring a lot of capability to the carrier, which meant that you could have the first team pretty much anywhere you needed it. It didn't give up much for being carrier capable. The last 14's, I'm given to understand, could fulfill the roles of the 15C and E, quite well.


Actually, the F-14, by introduction standards, brought a massive interceptor capability to the fleet that - at the time - was unheard of. Readiness however, was a different story altogether; with great capability comes great complexity. For it's day, you can't say this was unusual. Aircraft like the F-111, the B-70, SR-71, etc. were all advanced, complex aircraft of that same era. Compared to the capability offered by A-6s and later F-18s, the F-14 wasn't top dog. By all means it was the heart (although I still believe the A-6 was the real core) for a long time, though.

Also, the F-14s were unable to fill both the role of the F-15C and F-15E, and especially not at the same time. Both the F-15C and the F-15E had AMRAAM capability, while the F-14 had to stick with AIM-7 and AIM-9 when deployed on strike missions. Naturally, the F-15C couldn't (or wouldn't) do strikes, but the F-15E was and is *far* more capable than the F-14 is in the ground attack department. Also, the F-15E can carry strong ground attack loads along with necessary defensive - or offensive - air combat weapons. For all the Navy tried to make the F-14 into, it was no replacement for the A-6 and it's absolute best consisted of slinging - tops - 4 LGBs on a mission before having to head back for more.

The F-14 was an outstanding interceptor and, I admit, a capable strike aircraft; but let's keep in mind the Navy never intended for it to be a bomb truck in the first place, and they kept it from doing that sort of thing for a pretty big chunk of it's service life. Perhaps if they'd been more open with the aircraft, it would have evolved into something like the F-15E.



I read in some aero mag a while back that the Russians thought the closest match for the Su27/derivatives was the Tomcat. (I'm quite sure you can trust what they're saying)


Actually, the USSR regarded the F-14 as a third generation aircraft outclassed by their MiG-29 and Su-27 aircraft. They also came to this conclusion about the F-16, and F-18; the F-15 however was the real scare for them.

For the Russians, they paralleled the F-14 with the MiG-23; a stepping stone but not on par with "their" fourth generation.

GIAP.Shura
10-23-2007, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
No offense, but I think discussing anything logically regarding the F-14 is nigh impossible. "Top Gun" left quite a legacy.

Yep. Trying to pick up girls by singing "You've lost that loving feeling" has ruined my sex life.

huggy87
10-23-2007, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by ultraHun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
Concur with Sensei and Blottog. The F-15 is far superior to the F-14 at BVR. WVR it is a toss up. Both jets can hold their own when well flown, but neither is as good as a viper or hornet. In fact, both planes are kind of laughed at in the hornet community for ACM. However, the eagle is better than us at BVR. Although, the latest Rhinos I have flown can match and exceed the eagle. The earlier ones definitely not.

Just curious, in what respects can a Rhino match or exceed an Eagle? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not all Rhinos, but the latest with the AESA exceed the eagle's strong point, it's radar. The Eagle still has the rhino beat in speed, acceleration and t/w, but the rhino has always been better in the visual arena. Both aircraft have helmet and 9x; I'm not sure how good the eagles data link is but the hornet and rhino have a pretty damn good system now.

ultraHun
10-23-2007, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by huggy87:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ultraHun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
Concur with Sensei and Blottog. The F-15 is far superior to the F-14 at BVR. WVR it is a toss up. Both jets can hold their own when well flown, but neither is as good as a viper or hornet. In fact, both planes are kind of laughed at in the hornet community for ACM. However, the eagle is better than us at BVR. Although, the latest Rhinos I have flown can match and exceed the eagle. The earlier ones definitely not.

Just curious, in what respects can a Rhino match or exceed an Eagle? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not all Rhinos, but the latest with the AESA exceed the eagle's strong point, it's radar. The Eagle still has the rhino beat in speed, acceleration and t/w, but the rhino has always been better in the visual arena. Both aircraft have helmet and 9x; I'm not sure how good the eagles data link is but the hornet and rhino have a pretty damn good system now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for the answer, but I am now more perplexed then ever. The "Rhino" to me is the F-4 Phantom II and to my knowledge it was never equpped with an AESA radar? What other fighter is nicknamed "Rhino"?

ploughman
10-23-2007, 01:10 PM
F-18E/F = Rhino.

More here. (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0121b.shtml)

leitmotiv
10-23-2007, 01:13 PM
Yeah, I'm perplexed, too. To me "Rhino" is the F-4.

ultraHun
10-23-2007, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
F-18E/F = Rhino.

More here. (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0121b.shtml)

Thanks, I was on the verge of enlightment but still blocked by the believe that Hornet == "bug" && Super-Hornet == "superbug"

ploughman
10-23-2007, 01:25 PM
It's a name that's clearly discernible from Hornet so the deck crews on a carrier set the cat and arrestor wires correctly as the E/F's are heavier, must've caught on, caught on, geddit?

I'll get my coat.

leitmotiv
10-23-2007, 01:35 PM
Ach so!

MrMojok
10-24-2007, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Blottogg:The only big minus for the Tomcat at the planning level is its HUGE maintenance requirement, which was in fact what doomed it to retirement.


I am as big of a fan of the F-14 as anyone, and not just because of the movies. I think had things worked out differently, and there had been opportunities for the Tomcat to fulfill its designated role as FLEET DEFENDER(meaning defending the carrier group against bombers trying to launch cruise missiles at it), the legacy of the plane might be different.

Luckily for us all, the possible scenario of the USSR or anyone else having a serious go at one of the US carriers never happened. If it had, it would most certainly mean things had escalated to a point we all dreaded back then. End-of-the-world type stuff.

I was in the military too, and while I wasn't a pilot or maintenance crew or involved with any aircraft in any way, I was at several commands during the 90s where it was required that everyone read all message traffic. I'm not talking about classified stuff, but the department of the Navy sends out message traffic to all commands all the time, and in my case, even at a Marine infantry unit, we had to read it.

I can vividly remember several times around 1994-1995 when the Navy sent out priority message traffic saying the entire F-14 fleet was grounded for two or three days for a maintenance standdown. This was during periods where F-14s being lost was not all that uncommon. I'm not talking about them crashing at the rate of 2-3 per day, but at the same time they were being lost due to mech failures at an alarming rate, at a couple of different points in time back then.

I don't know if anyone else remembers what I am talking about, but like I said, this was around 94-95. I know the plane was 20 years into its service life at that point, and I understand its maintenance requirements were extremely high, and parts were expensive, but I have never understood exactly what was going on with them. The F-15 has been around about as long as the Tomcat, and it doesn't look to suffer from the same maintenance and parts issues. Can anyone explain what happened?

horseback
10-24-2007, 11:20 PM
Landing on carriers is even more stressful on the airframe than the pilot; carrier traps are often described as controlled crashes for good reason. This was especially true with the Tomcat, which was a handful to land, especially with that hand-me-down engine from the F-111B it was originally equipped with.

cheers

horseback

Cajun76
10-24-2007, 11:25 PM
Well for one thing, carrier ops are much rougher than those lovely patches of smooth, non-bucking and moving runway. Those Navy a/c really get pounded.

I remember hearing about a new? C-130 pilot mashing down for a 3G landing and some crew chief friends of mine (I was an engine mech, and was kind enough to allow them in my presence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) complaining about the long and time consuming maintenance checklist they were going to have to go through.

MrMojok
10-24-2007, 11:39 PM
Will the F-18 then eventually go through the same period where it's airframe has been stressed for so hard and so long that it too must be retired?

berg417448
10-25-2007, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
Will the F-18 then eventually go through the same period where it's airframe has been stressed for so hard and so long that it too must be retired?


A great many F-18 and F-15 aircraft have already been retired.
http://www.amarcexperience.com/AMARCArticleF18Hornet.asp