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

buzzard 8/7/2007 4:49:53 PM

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.

Do you have the ratio handy? I know the F-15 is something like 100-0 for it's combat record. That's pretty hard to dispute. Also I believe I've read that the reliability on the Phoenix wasn't all it was cracked up to be, and with that your edge for the F-14 falls off quite quickly.

buzzard

Quote Reply

5thGuards 8/7/2007 6:51:09 PM

I would choose F-15 betwen the two , F-15's combat record is amazing

Quote Reply

ambush 8/7/2007 8:12:55 PM

In 1971 the House Appropriations Committee had completed a comparative study of the F-14 and F-15 Because of the development problems that the F-15 was having lead them to initially to side with F-14. However the argument was put forward that the F-14 was designed as a fleet defense missile interceptor while the F-15 as a maneuvering offensive fighter. An offshoot of all this was the FX light fighter program .

In 1971 the Secretary of Defense requested that a navalized version of the F-15 be studied (F-15N Seagle). It was concluded that the increased drag and weight from the AIM-54 and radar would reduce performance and drive up costs.

In 1973 the Senate wanted another study into making the F-15 into a carrier fighter since the F-14 was having development problems of its own. The Secretary of Defense recommended an F-14 v. F-15N fly-off. However because of cost this testing never happened. It is reported the arguments between the supporters of the two programs got so intense that one pilot recommended a fly-off with live ammo.

Which aircraft was/is better? They were designed were for different missions. I think in the long run the F-15 could have been more easily adaptable to fill the F-14s role than the other way around. It was not until later that F-14 got an engine that gave it a thrust to weight ratio similar to the F-15s.

Another measure might be foreign sales. How many countries preferred the F-15 over the F-14?

Quote Reply

kirby1 8/8/2007 2:19:47 PM

Maybe I'm wrong here, but the F-15 didn't seem to have near as many maintenance issues as the F-14s did. Who had the higher sortie rate per plane?

Aside from that, Hindsight is 20/20. Sure it looks smart now, and it probably was a smart idea. But at the time, the F-14 looked like a Heavy interceptor meant to replace a stillborn F-111 navalized program, and the F-15 looked like an allpurpose airsuperiority fighter meant to fix the airforces' tactical glitches of Vietnam. Who would have figured that both planes would have wound up being so adaptive?

If I was an Airforce JCS, I would have taken the F-14s as is. If theres one thing that the airforce doesn't want to admit, its that while modding a land based plane to fly carrier ops doesn't work that well, (IE F-111, the JSF problems of late), using a carrier based plane from land does. It worked for the F-4 phantoms, its working for the EA-6 prowlers we borrowed from the navy.

Quote Reply

VelocityVector 8/8/2007 4:13:39 PM

Hypothetical. The US soon will be in position to rollout stealth aircraft flying modifiable wing "skins" courtesy of nanontech that have favorable stealth attributes. They may not be manned. One might conclude that F-111 and F-14 were not in vain as these have led the way.

v^2

Quote Reply

ambush 8/8/2007 4:53:07 PM

Maybe I'm wrong here, but the F-15 didn't seem to have near as many maintenance issues as the F-14s did. Who had the higher sortie rate per plane?

And as CNO I would have gone the opposite direction. The F-15 did have maintenance problems early in its introduction mostly related to the computer system that was supposed to troubleshoot the modules and a lack of spares (as I understand it).

I think an F-15N Seagle would have been more adaptable and the Navy could have had a common airframe for the F-14, F/A-18 and A-6 missions. The procurement and maintenance cost saving would have been significant by using a common airframe. The F-15 was a cheaper plan than the F-14 so you figure even with upgrades for a naval version and upgrades to handle the AIM-54 and a stirke version Navalized F-15E the combined Navy Air Force (And absent and F/A-18 add the USMC) airframe buy would have lowered costs.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Roles 8/8/2007 5:53:01 PM

Take a look at the design requirements. The F-14 was designed to be a carrier borne fighter and the F-15 land based. Carrier aircraft suffer huge weight penalties and higher maintenance due to the environment they operate in. Can't compare the two in abstract. A land based Tomcat would have been much lighter and suffered less on maintenance. Both planes though were outstanding and the F-15 continues to be easily the most capable fighter-bomber in the world second only to the F-22 and perhaps the F/A-18E/F.

-DA

Quote Reply

Phaid 8/8/2007 7:19:47 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.

Quote Reply

VelocityVector 8/8/2007 7:25:53 PM

To add: an Israeli F-15 was landed without further damage after it lost a wing. If this happenstance was visited upon an F-14 the pilot would have been forced to eject. "Rugged F-15" is an understatement ;>)

v^2

Quote Reply

abuddy 3/5/2008 12:40:26 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.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT