F-14 vs. F-15

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: F-14 vs. F-15
boris the romanian 9/29/2006 1:21:01 AM

Something that's always bugged me, I often wonder why the USAF didn't field the F-14A in the 1970s but went with the F-15A. I reckon in the 1970s era of SARH MRMs, the Tomcat would have absolutely mopped the floor with the F-15 a la its performance in Iran vs. Iraq against Floggers and Mirages. It's ability to engage multiple targets at ranges of 100km+ was far in excess of the F-15's capabilities, and the Tomcat was no picnic in a dogfight either. I understand the Pheonix would have performed with reduced accuracy against manoeuvering targets, but when a target is manoeuvering he is defensive, bleeding off his energy, ever more vulnerable to a follow-up shot, and much less likely to get in a shot of his own. The only area where I see the Eagle having any sort of meaningful combat superiority over the Tomcat is mud moving, but the 1970s motto was "not a pound for air to ground". Why didn't the USAF field the Tomcat? Seems like a mistake to me...

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Francois 10/3/2006 1:52:33 AM

The first limitator in any conflict is the ROE.

Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia are examples.

Liberate the ROE, and you get the best of men and platforms.

Now, flight-hour cost of the Tomcat, and work hours are (were) tremendous.

I think the SH is what, one tenth of that? And the Eagle might be 20%?

Don't think the Bomcat was such a good platform, IMHO.

Quote Reply

boris the romanian 10/3/2006 2:33:03 AM

Operating costs or not, I don't think the USAF decision to completely overlook the F-14 was at all a smart move. If the Cold War had gone hot, the F-14 would have been a much better fighter than the F-15, especially in crowded skies. The Tomcat, unlike the Eagle, could take on many times its own number of Soviet fighters and still come out on top.

Quote Reply

Rasputin 10/3/2006 3:50:59 AM

Well its like the F4 Phantom and A4 skyhawk thing, if the aircraft has a high maintenance cost, chances are the lower cost one will keep on being utilized. Those 2 aircraft are amazing, they just came out and could become "JSF" planes, but for the present, there are so many "problems" with the real JSF.

If you look at the world wide carriers forces and carrier aircraft, harriers, properllor planes, super enternard, yak 38 forger, and with not much likely hood of facing soviet Tu 22 blindfires, perhaps the navy felt the F14 was overkill an inteceptor for decades, and the production line must have been scheduled to shut down. Since there were no multi role versions, the F14 just faded away. But in the present, there are threats like the Rafaels and Su 27 that can operate from carriers, but they could just be paper threats, because there are not that many carriers and planes yet.

The F15 is also an air superiority fighter, it was designed to take down the Mig 25 Foxbat, it would be good to compare if the F14 could take down the Mig 25? The F15 could also carry 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders at its prime, it had the edge against the soviet fighters then that could only carry 4 or 2 missiles.

Quote Reply

boris the romanian 10/3/2006 7:54:10 AM

That's not at all what I was referring to.

An F-15 may have been superior to any Soviet fighter it would have encountered over the battlefield, but it's SARH limitations would have ensured that it would have been shot down in significant numbers in any actual Central European conflict. Much of the fighting would have been at WVR due to ECM, terrain considerations, and the inability of targeting multiple hostiles at BVR.

All this would have been dramatically different with the Tomcat, which could destroy enemy fighters at much greater distances than the Eagle. Furthermore, it was more or less the only Western fighter that could engage multiple targets simultaneously at BVR before AMRAAM (with the Soviets having the MiG-31).

The Tomcat's WVR battle would have been against much fewer opponents, who would very probably be on the defensive anyway. I still think the Tomcat was a far superior fighter, and one that should have been adopted by the USAF.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles 10/3/2006 8:40:26 AM

From the start they each were designed for different missions and with different traditions and doctrines.

The F-14 was designed for Fleet Defence against massed Soviet cruise missile attacks. It was designed around the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. Also from the start it was envisioend that there would be a Naval Flight Officer who would work radar and systems and the nose gunner would fly and fire the missiles. It also had to be built like a tank to handle the stresses of operating from a carrier....trhere is a very good reason that the Navy's nickname for Grumman was The Bethpage Iron Works!

The F-15 was itnended as an air superiority fighter/interceptor. While there was some need fror homeland defence it was intended to fly, fight and win over Western Europe as part of a NATO/Warsaw Pact fight. It had to be effective in the interceptor role to protect the UK and and Western Europe as well as have the capacity to dogfight well to handle whatever came along. It was also designed for quick and easy maintenance since it was expected to have a higher level of optempo than the F-14. And it did nto need to be as robust as the F-14....though it is not a frail aircraft by any stretch.

Quote Reply

boris the romanian 10/3/2006 8:49:40 AM

Right, but the F-14 would have performed much better over Central Europe than the F-15. The very fact that a land based fighter didn't need to be stressed for carrier ops would mean that a land-based USAF Tomcat variant would be a lighter, more agile beast, further decreasing the attractiveness of the F-15.

Pheonix wouldn't have been all-powerful against the VVS, mind you (especially before mass-raid discrimination was introduced in the late '80s), but it would have been much more potent than Sparrow. The number of actual kills via AIM-54 would have probably been rather low (especially once VVS pilots introduced the "close-box" formation for breaking lock), but it would place the Soviet aircraft on the defensive and thus much more vulnerable to following shots.

Quote Reply

tonyhawklookalike 8/5/2007 12:33:07 AM

Seems like a mistake? Hardly. Check out the kill stats for the F-15 Eagle in combat. Last I checked, it has an undefeated record. 34 kills in the gulf war alone against a host of aircraft. Both are great planes though... Like choosing between children. And so many factors to consider in choosing and aircraft- USAF may have considered things like weight and range which are more desirable in the Eagle.

Quote Reply

boris the romanian 8/6/2007 2:36:07 AM

Perhaps you should check the F-14's kill tally out. It's shot down very comparable numbers, and that's in Iranian hands! Imagine what USAF pilots could have done with it.

Quote Reply

Claymore 8/6/2007 3:35:56 AM

both were good planes, I think back in their hey-day the 14 had the electronics edge and the 15 had the physical performance edge.

Simply put the 14 was not built for the airforce.

Also all the moaning a whining about the F-14 going away gets futher off base the more you learn about the systems and costs the SH has.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 8/7/2007 6:19:02 AM

The Israelis evaluated both, and found that the F-15 was better in manueverability, cheaper to operate, and better suited for their needs. Remember that the F-14's main selling point was the Phoenix--great for defending a carrier battlegroup at 200 miles out against cruise-missile packing bombers, but not so good when the enemy is five minutes flying time from the border.

It's worked out pretty well for them.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT