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
DarthAmerica       3/5/2008 3:23:46 AM

I had a talk with a former F-14 pilot.  He said that in mock fights the F-15s regularly had the advantage on the F-14s until they finally got rid of the TF30s.  The F-15s had the higher thrust to weight ratio.  This was of course WVR, but from what I've read and heard, Phoenix accuracy wasn't as great as advertised.  Also, the idea of being able to knock out vast numbers of enemy aircraft BVR is not a realistic view IMHO.  Jamming, countermeasures, deception, malfunctions, and the less than perfect operation of anything man-made means that enemy aircraft would have definitely gotten through the first lobby of missiles, and not just a few.  Any major Soviet confrontation would have definitely degenerated into a closer fight.  The F-15 has the advantage close in.  That being said, AIM-7s just suck.


The idea that vast numbers of threat aircraft have jammers and countermeasures or that modern BVR AAMs aren't reliable is false. At least in the case of the AMRAAM. Also, the Phoenix was used quite a bit in the Iran Iraq war. With good results.
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    For what it's worth   3/5/2008 11:59:47 AM
Part of the F14's higher maintenance cost could be explained by the harsher environment it operates in, there's more salt water that  corrodes plane parts at sea. Also the harder carrier landings would cause higher maintenance costs, the parts are under greaater mechanical stresses and the increased vibrations from hard landings would effect parts throughout the plane.

So a F14 operating from an airstrip would have lower maintenace costs when compared A F14 operating from a carrier.


 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       3/5/2008 5:57:31 PM

The F-14A is was a defensive interceptor.  The F-15A was designed for offensive counter-air.  Although either aircraft could have been shoehorned into the other's mission, they wouldn't have been as good a fit as they were in actual service.

The outstanding fleet-defense capability the F-14A brought came at the cost of insane mechanical and electronic complexity.  And the F-14A was underpowered and hampered by unreliable engines, even if it was remarkably maneuverable.  These compromises were deemed worthwhile considering the relatively small number of F-14As needed and the high value of the mission they performed.  Deploying as many F-14As as would have been needed for a front line Air Force fighter would never have been affordable due to the support costs.  It was also less operationally suitable for the Air Force: the F-14A's weapons were too specialized to the naval interception role: its AIM-54s would not have been of much use in a NATO vs Warsaw Pact conflict where rules of engagement would have prohibited 80-nm missile shots.  And its lower t/w and maneuverability would have made it less suitable in that sort of conflict.  It still would have been superior to the Soviet aircraft it would have faced, but not so decisively as the F-15.

By comparison the F-15 is a much simpler airframe, and it was much cheaper to support and more reliable.  Its weapons are cheap and widely available in NATO, and it excelled at the kind of air to air combat that it would have really had to engage in over Europe.

Well stated.
 About the only way the USAF could have employed the F-14A is by using it in an interceptor role, i.e. what it was designed for. I could imagine USAF F-14As intercepting Bear, Badger, and Backfire bombers (and later Blackjack) over the Atlantic and the Pacific before they had a chance to drop the bomb on American cities.

But to replace the F-15 in its OCA role? No. The F-15 was the best choice for that role. It would not have made a good carrier aircraft, IMO. To start with the tail surfaces would have had to be redesigned to fit in the hangar deck. The wings would have had to fold, and the landing gear would have had to be reinforced just to start with.

Both aircraft rightly developed along separate paths for good reason. The requirements were different. These days things have changed. There isn't as great of a need for a fleet defense interceptor to kill Backfire Regiments 300nm away from the battle group. The difference between the requirements for the USAF and the USN missions are becoming blurred.
 
Quote    Reply

nyetneinnon       3/5/2008 10:54:44 PM



The F-14A is was a defensive interceptor.  The F-15A was designed for offensive counter-air.  Although either aircraft could have been shoehorned into the other's mission, they wouldn't have been as good a fit as they were in actual service.

The outstanding fleet-defense capability the F-14A brought came at the cost of insane mechanical and electronic complexity.  And the F-14A was underpowered and hampered by unreliable engines, even if it was remarkably maneuverable.  These compromises were deemed worthwhile considering the relatively small number of F-14As needed and the high value of the mission they performed.  Deploying as many F-14As as would have been needed for a front line Air Force fighter would never have been affordable due to the support costs.  It was also less operationally suitable for the Air Force: the F-14A's weapons were too specialized to the naval interception role: its AIM-54s would not have been of much use in a NATO vs Warsaw Pact conflict where rules of engagement would have prohibited 80-nm missile shots.  And its lower t/w and maneuverability would have made it less suitable in that sort of conflict.  It still would have been superior to the Soviet aircraft it would have faced, but not so decisively as the F-15.

By comparison the F-15 is a much simpler airframe, and it was much cheaper to support and more reliable.  Its weapons are cheap and widely available in NATO, and it excelled at the kind of air to air combat that it would have really had to engage in over Europe.

Well stated.
 About the only way the USAF could have employed the F-14A is by using it in an interceptor role, i.e. what it was designed for. I could imagine USAF F-14As intercepting Bear, Badger, and Backfire bombers (and later Blackjack) over the Atlantic and the Pacific before they had a chance to drop the bomb on American cities.

But to replace the F-15 in its OCA role? No. The F-15 was the best choice for that role. It would not have made a good carrier aircraft, IMO. To start with the tail surfaces would have had to be redesigned to fit in the hangar deck. The wings would have had to fold, and the landing gear would have had to be reinforced just to start with.

Both aircraft rightly developed along separate paths for good reason. The requirements were different. These days things have changed. There isn't as great of a need for a fleet defense interceptor to kill Backfire Regiments 300nm away from the battle group. The difference between the requirements for the USAF and the USN missions are becoming blurred.

Perhaps the question should have been, why didn't USN go with a F-15N instead of F-14?  I agree that two separate equivalent fighters for the two services equate to excessive and duplicative R&D.  So for argument sake, perhaps navalized, AESA/SAR/CFT upgraded F-15s would still be flying and would also be the Super hornet the F-14 could not be?
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       3/6/2008 7:32:43 AM






Perhaps the question should have been, why didn't USN go with a F-15N instead of F-14?  I agree that two separate equivalent fighters for the two services equate to excessive and duplicative R&D.  So for argument sake, perhaps navalized, AESA/SAR/CFT upgraded F-15s would still be flying and would also be the Super hornet the F-14 could not be?

Because the Navy needed interceptors, not air superiority fighters.

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       3/6/2008 9:01:13 AM
About the only way the USAF could have employed the F-14A is by using it in an interceptor role, i.e. what it was designed for. I could imagine USAF F-14As intercepting Bear, Badger, and Backfire bombers (and later Blackjack) over the Atlantic and the Pacific before they had a chance to drop the bomb on American cities.

Definitely.  There was actually a proposal for such a thing in the early 70s -- part of the Improved Manned Interceptor program.  It would have been an F-14A fitted with CFTs for even longer range.  Like many other programs then, it died due to cost concerns.   I  remember someone dragging that idea back out in the late 80s when the very last of the ANG F-106 squadrons were about to be retired, though at that point it would hopefully have meant a landlubberized F-14D.
 
Quote    Reply

nyetneinnon       3/6/2008 10:06:54 PM










Perhaps the question should have been, why didn't USN go with a F-15N instead of F-14?  I agree that two separate equivalent fighters for the two services equate to excessive and duplicative R&D.  So for argument sake, perhaps navalized, AESA/SAR/CFT upgraded F-15s would still be flying and would also be the Super hornet the F-14 could not be?


Because the Navy needed interceptors, not air superiority fighters.



Where there's a will there's a way.  I'm sure the F-15 could have been tweaked sufficiently to qualify as both Interceptor and air superiority fighter.  As Dropbear member said at the top, it's raw Congressional political interests, inter-service rivalry (and a slight pinch of Military Industrial Complex lobby) which causes separate service R&D projects such as F-16/18, F-14/15, F-22/F-35??  Perhaps another thread would be best to suggest a THAAD/SM-3 duality?
 
And if budget crunching becomes a serious issue, ever, I'm sure things will be more streamlined..
 
Glad I found Stratpage btw.  Here for about a week.  (I'm nyetnonnein on Youtube)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       3/6/2008 10:27:08 PM















Perhaps the question should have been, why didn't USN go with a F-15N instead of F-14?  I agree that two separate equivalent fighters for the two services equate to excessive and duplicative R&D.  So for argument sake, perhaps navalized, AESA/SAR/CFT upgraded F-15s would still be flying and would also be the Super hornet the F-14 could not be?



Because the Navy needed interceptors, not air superiority fighters.




Where there's a will there's a way.  I'm sure the F-15 could have been tweaked sufficiently to qualify as both Interceptor and air superiority fighter.  As Dropbear member said at the top, it's raw Congressional political interests, inter-service rivalry (and a slight pinch of Military Industrial Complex lobby) which causes separate service R&D projects such as F-16/18, F-14/15, F-22/F-35??  Perhaps another thread would be best to suggest a THAAD/SM-3 duality?

 

And if budget crunching becomes a serious issue, ever, I'm sure things will be more streamlined..

 

Glad I found Stratpage btw.  Here for about a week.  (I'm nyetnonnein on Youtube)

Welcome aboard.

First; let me point out a couple of errors:.

First of all, the F-15 was designed to fight as a pure air superiority fighter.

The correct Soviet comparison to it did nbot exoist at the time though the US thought the MiG 25 was it. the correct US aircraft to compare to the Foxbat was the Tomcat as both were optimized to be bomber killers.

The second error is to assume that landbased and naval based SAMs are alike. If for no other reason than the shorter range and the need to make it a smaller rocket that can be land mobile for Army defense, you cannot compare the THAAD mission to Standard 3. THAAD will defend a New Jersey area against a descending phase TBM warhead. the SM-3 we now  know can hit in a crossing shot  something as fast as an ICBM warhead if it can reach/chase it anywhere along its flight path.

THAT puts SM-3 into a class by itself.

Herald

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       3/6/2008 11:47:11 PM

Where there's a will there's a way.  I'm sure the F-15 could have been tweaked sufficiently to qualify as both Interceptor and air superiority fighter.  As Dropbear member said at the top, it's raw Congressional political interests, inter-service rivalry (and a slight pinch of Military Industrial Complex lobby) which causes separate service R&D projects such as F-16/18, F-14/15, F-22/F-35??  Perhaps another thread would be best to suggest a THAAD/SM-3 duality?

 

And if budget crunching becomes a serious issue, ever, I'm sure things will be more streamlined..

 

Glad I found Stratpage btw.  Here for about a week.  (I'm nyetnonnein on Youtube)


You could bodger a design into something it was never intended to do, like carry 6 AIM-54s, which were very heavy missiles, make it carrier capable, and shove the AWG-9 into the nose, but at some point you reach the point of diminishing returns. You turn an Eagle into a Thanksgiving turkey by bastardizing the design.

If you're going to design an aircraft for carrier and land based use, you have to take into account the carrier operations FIRST, like the JSF does (the need to make it carrier capable, and actually more importantly, STOLV capable, was incorporated into the design process from the word go.). Taking a land-based aircraft and trying to make it carrier capable gives you the F-111B. Whereas, a carrier capable aircraft can be readily adapted as a land-based variant as the A-4, A-7, F-4, F-18 and F-14 have proven in service to this and other nations.

As for THAAD/SM-3 (Which isn't even a real comparison, THAAD is a system, SM-3 is a component of the AEGIS BMD system), what you seem to fail to understand is that SM-3 is a build on to an existing system. THAAD is a new system. THAAD is as useful at sea as SM-3/AEGIS BMD would be on land. 

Would you add THAAD to a ship's combat system or would you replace the ship's existing combat system with THAAD, and if so, how would you integrate THAAD with things like SQS-53 and Harpoon? 

If you take Aegis ashore, how do you plan on transporting the transmitters/antennas designed for shipboard use? How do you plan on launching SM-3? A two story truck with a VLS system on it? What would be the CoG? Would it be road safe?

When are people going to realize a navy is not an army at sea? It hasn't been that way since cannons were affixed to ships. The REQUIREMENTS are different. Trying to gain savings by placing a system in an environment it wasn't designed for or trying to design a system to cover every possible operating environment results in no savings at all! 
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    F-14 vs F-15   3/7/2008 3:54:07 AM
If I recall correctly, both the Eagle and the Tomcat started from the baseline of the F-4, then the standard fighter of both services (although designed for the Navy).
The F-14 was supposed to be able to at least equal the F-4 in all capabilities including ACM and AtoG, and be a radical imporvement as a defensive interceptor.  One of the design requirements was that it be superior to the MiG21 in all aspects of performance, including turning ability.  It may have been second best to the more specialized F-15 at the Eagle's specialty, but not by very much.
The F-15 was intended to be a specialized ACM platform.  The motto for the design project was: "Not one pound for air to ground".
The early F-14As were all wired to handle bombs and missiles, but it proved so useful as an interceptor and as an air superiortiy fighter that it wasn't used in that role until near the end of its service.  In Afganistan, however, the 14s used as fighter-bombers proved much more effective than the F18A-D types as it could carry a much heavier bombload much farther with fewer tankings, and deliver the load at least as accurately.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics