OT, but there's a lot of F-14 fans on this board

[91WhiskeyM6]

The Navy F-4 Phantom II didn't have any guns at one time until Mig-21's began kicking their asses close up.

[91WhiskeyM6]

The F-14 has the most powerful radar.  It has the longest-range missiles.

F-15's are faster. 

If it's a regular Tomcat, it has less power than an F-15.  If it's a Super Tomcat, they're equal. 

Their manueverability is about equal I'd say, in most conditions.  (F-14 is probably a bit better when slow, F-15 is probably a bit better when fast)

So? Those missiles aren't designed for shooting fighters.

It's funny how you guys are mentioning "Modern Marvels", because it was "Modern Marvels" or another Aviation show that aired the best fighters of all times back in 1996 in the Discovery Channel(thank god I taped that episode).

"Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM)

Outer Air Battle Missile

During the 1980s the Navy invested in developing the Phoenix into a robust, long-range, high-energy weapon system, and in the late 1980s embarked on a program to develope an improved follow-on capability in the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM). Advanced Common Intercept Missile Demonstration (ACIMD) tests demonstrated the technology and hardware for a highly advanced Sparrow-sized, integral-rocket-ramjet-propelled, multimode-guided air-to-air missile for the long-range outer-air battle. The Navy planned to maintain and support an adequate Phoenix missile capability until the AAAM is fielded in sufficient numbers. A missile retrofit program incorporating an already developed and demonstrated block upgrade to the AIM -54C was a cost-effective interim solution. As of 1990 it was estimated that it would require at least 10 years to introduce the follow-on Advanced Air-to-Air Missile.

With the end of the Cold War there was a general recognition that the outer air battle -- the battle against Soviet naval aviation bombers -- was significantly reduced in importance. While AAAM was seen as the best defense against the Soviet naval air arm, the future threat would consist of Third World fighter-bomber or diesel-electric submarine. This changing security environment doomed this Phoenix missile successor [as well as the associated F-14D Super Tomcat upgrades], and the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile program was cancelled in 1992. "

Psss... so much for long range air-to-air missiles. The F-14D was cancelled because it's useless PERIOD. I hate that stupid move "TopGun". It brainwashed alot of civilians out there.

Edited January 15, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[ewilen]

Your logic and sources certainly agree with why I think the F-14 was terminated. But the same logic applies to the F-22...a beautiful, expensive plane that would have been great if the balloon went up in Europe, but now that the threat for the foreseeable future comes from third world countries with nonexistent navies, negligible, poorly-trained air forces, and rabble armies...Not to mention, the F-22 is probably "too good" for the export market, and too expensive.

(Not that I agree the F-14 would do a worse job than the F-15 in a dogfight with a Flanker, say, or intercepting a Mig-25. I don't think the data is conclusive. If it means anything, Iran specifically bought the F-14 to put an end to the Mig-25 overflights, as noted in an earlier link and here. Israel got the F-15. Both planes seem to have succeeded in stopping the overflights.)

Edited January 15, 2004 by ewilen

[91WhiskeyM6]

Yeah, but the 15 is better at intercepting the Foxbat because it can climb faster and can chase it farther than the Tomcat can.

[Graham]

As "cheap" as the F-15s are, SU-27s are even cheaper, and that's why countries like Australia are dumping their F-18s in favor of the cheaper, less sophisitcated & easy to maintain russian fighters. It's shocking, but a huge goose like the Flanker costs about as much as an F-16, and has much greater service range... Hard bargain to beat.

Australia is dumping their F/A-18s in favor of Flankers? That's the first I've heard of that!

IIRC, I thought Austalia was planning to go with the F-35 JSF (which is a big expensive mistake IMO), as that plane tries to be too many things at once and does nothing particularly well.

Australia would be much better going with the Eurofighter Typhoon, which I consider to be superb multi-role plane (at least in it's Tranche 2 or full up Tranche 3 configuration).

Graham

[rdenham]

Sadly, the Super Tomcats were supposed to be the first thing to get AMRAAM capability. Could have done 6/2 AMRAAM/Sidewinder--equal to the F-15C or F-22.

For anyone who is interested in what a real world F-14 looks like with an AIM-120 here is a picture of a test flight with an AMRAAM.

[bake_art]

Sorry, but your precious Tomcat is actually cheaper than the Eagle as it should be since the F-15 is regarded as the best fighter of it's time. Not only that, the Eagle can operate farther distances than the Tomcat both fully loaded.

hmmmm...faster, climbs higher, and can linger around longer in a dogfight. Not to mention it's EXCELLENT combat resume.

The F-15 was designed to go into somebody's "MAP", establish itself as the neighborhood bully and kick-ass(reborn P-51D Mustang)! The Tomcat was designed to shoot from long range....*yawn* When the Russians developed the Flanker, they did that in response to the teen fighters, but primarily in GOD's fear of the Eagle. That's why you see side-by-side pictures of these two as the best fighters out there 10 years ago. Do you see any pics of the Flanker and Tomcat together?

F-15'S role: Air SUPERIORITY fighter

F-14's role: Fleet air defense(meaning it's gotta shoot before a military aircraft can lunch anti-ship missiles)

Which role do you expect the best fighter to be in?

Oh yeah?

but does your F-15 resemble one of the most coolest transforming mechas of all time?

[GreatMoose]

Seriously, Whiskey. Take a breath, brother. It's just an airplane. Both the -15 and the -14 EXCEL at what they were designed to do. I will say this, the -14 is a much better dogfighter than you're giving it credit for. Also, the AIM-64 was never intended to go after fighters. It was intended to down bombers and cruise missiles. I don't think that it's fair to label either fighter better than the other. They've defended this country for almost 30 years, and that says something. Oh by the way, did you know that there are plans to keep the B-52 in service until potentially 2050?!?!! I heard that from a DoD guy, and was like, WTH?! Sweet! 100 year old bombers!

[Skull Leader]

BOTH aircraft have excellent service records in their fields of operation... Neither type of aircraft have suffered extensively from aggression of opposing aircraft. (I believe very few..if any of these have been shot down)

BOTH aircraft serve as national icons for air superiority.

Why trash-talk one or the other? I'd much rather fly an F-14 than a flanker or Foxbat. I think in terms of reliability and performance it still far outranks it's russian counterparts (overall, not in specific categories.... "climb rate"... meh what a weak argument.)

[Coota0]

Tow things: 1) Ain't nobody gonna catch a MiG-25/31 travelling at full speed (Max afterburner) in a tail-on intercept.

2) A MiG-25 isn't going to attack your IBCM facilities either it's a pure fighter, soley built to get up to altitude and intereceppt U.S. spy planes, like the U-2

Kust wanted to point that out continue your arguing

[Coota0]

I saw that discovery channel airpower comparison too, just a few days ago and I serously quetion it.

They never say who their experts are or what they do, just that they've gathered the world's aviation expert's together and here's what they said was the best out of the 4-6 fighters we let them caompare. I noticed there was a disturbing trend that the majority of the fighters were all U.S. Air Force Fighters, with a few exceptions: the WWII attacker was the German Stuka (No One else had a dedicated attack aircraft, U.S. torpedo and dive bombers weren't even an option, I didn't see the British Mesquito either) The Aircraft of WWI category picked a German bird too. (but we weren't even involved until 1917, it was eitehr gonna be a french or German aircraft) Finally in the late Vietnam period they picked the F-4 (everybody flew the F-4, how could it not be picked)

Anybody else think this show was a little less than expert?

[ewilen]

Unless something's happened very recently, indications are that the RAAF will continue using regular (not Super) Hornets until the JSF comes on line.

http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimension...pts/s889679.htm

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Hilltpl...?CurrentId=3299

Edit: i.e., no Flankers for Australia. Although I've come across some bellyaching about Indonesia getting them.

Edited January 16, 2004 by ewilen

[91WhiskeyM6]

Seriously, Whiskey. Take a breath, brother. It's just an airplane. Both the -15 and the -14 EXCEL at what they were designed to do. I will say this, the -14 is a much better dogfighter than you're giving it credit for. Also, the AIM-64 was never intended to go after fighters. It was intended to down bombers and cruise missiles. I don't think that it's fair to label either fighter better than the other. They've defended this country for almost 30 years, and that says something. Oh by the way, did you know that there are plans to keep the B-52 in service until potentially 2050?!?!! I heard that from a DoD guy, and was like, WTH?! Sweet! 100 year old bombers!

That's "AIM-54C" "brother" and no! the Tomcat isn't the better dogfighter compared to the DECLARED BEST FIGHTER OF WORLD(1970S TO 1980S)F-15C Eagle.

Look at it this way:

The F-14 role was to protect a 90,000 ton warship. The 15's role was protecting your ass and your valk collection. <_<

As for the Phoenix's role? try telling these kids that just because it can launch a clumsy missile at a slow moving target doesn't make it all that.

Seriously, I think 99% of you pick the 14 cuz' it looks cool.

[91WhiskeyM6]

I saw that discovery channel airpower comparison too, just a few days ago and I serously quetion it.

They never say who their experts are or what they do, just that they've gathered the world's aviation expert's together and here's what they said was the best out of the 4-6 fighters we let them caompare. I noticed there was a disturbing trend that the majority of the fighters were all U.S. Air Force Fighters, with a few exceptions: the WWII attacker was the German Stuka (No One else had a dedicated attack aircraft, U.S. torpedo and dive bombers weren't even an option, I didn't see the British Mesquito either) The Aircraft of WWI category picked a German bird too. (but we weren't even involved until 1917, it was eitehr gonna be a french or German aircraft) Finally in the late Vietnam period they picked the F-4 (everybody flew the F-4, how could it not be picked)

Anybody else think this show was a little less than expert?

Yeah, you guys are experts? You have Phd's in this field like those people working for Janes, Airpower, etc?

I'm only repeating the hundreds of books/media I've read on the 14,15,16, and 18 series fighter that the 15 is the best fighter PERIOD.

[91WhiskeyM6]

BOTH aircraft have excellent service records in their fields of operation... Neither type of aircraft have suffered extensively from aggression of opposing aircraft. (I believe very few..if any of these have been shot down)

BOTH aircraft serve as national icons for air superiority.

Why trash-talk one or the other? I'd much rather fly an F-14 than a flanker or Foxbat. I think in terms of reliability and performance it still far outranks it's russian counterparts (overall, not in specific categories.... "climb rate"... meh what a weak argument.)

You're on crack! I'd rather have the Flanker than the Tomcat. The Flanker also has the best short range air-to-air missile in the Archer outside the ASRAAM.

[Dobber]

[

The F-15 was designed to go into somebody's "MAP", establish itself as the neighborhood bully and kick-ass(reborn P-51D Mustang)! The Tomcat was designed to shoot from long range....*yawn* When the Russians developed the Flanker, they did that in response to the teen fighters, but primarily in GOD's fear of the Eagle. That's why you see side-by-side pictures of these two as the best fighters out there 10 years ago. Do you see any pics of the Flanker and Tomcat together?

So you want to compare records eh? You "yawn" at engaging targets at range. Well, which aircraft has the higher friendly fire instances? The EAGLE. Your precious Eagle also tries to engage at a distance, otherwise they would've been close enough to visually confirm Friend or foe and prevent those tragic accidents. Capt. America said it best the Tomcat would distinguish targets better, faster, and farther away. Hate to break it to you but pilots WANT to engage from a distance so they have a higher probability of seeing their families again.

You also say the Tomcat is much older than the Eagle. Personally I don't think they are that far apart but if you want to believe that, that's fine. So your "newer" fighter is constantly being compaired to an inferior aircraft. Here I thought Newer would meen better. The Eagle does NOT out perform the Tomcat out right. Nor does the Tomcat out perform the Eagle out right!

You said it yourself, the Eagle was designed to climb up and catch mig-25's. The Tomcat was designed for Fleet Defense. Take those two variables away and you have a pretty even matching...between a "newer" fighter and an "older" fighter!

Chris

P.S. The Friendly fire reference is not meant to show a flaw in the Eagle or anybody for that matter. It is meant to show that Fighters want to engage at a Distance.

Edited January 15, 2004 by Dobber

[F-ZeroOne]

By the way, the "experts" nominated the P-51D and the Eagle as the best fighters of all times. What are your credentials and the credibility of your sources?

I'm sorry, but I can't let that one go. Anything with "expert opinion" like that is going to rather subjective. If theres one thing I've learned from reading about air combat its that no one aircraft is entirely superior to another.

For example, take the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa ( "Oscar" ) of W.W. II. BY late W.W. II standards, it was obselete - slow, poorly armed and very lightly built. Yet pilots flying such heavily armed, fast and sturdy aircraft as P-38 Lightnings learned to be careful when taking them on, because the agility of the Hayabusa, even by late war standards, and in the hands of a skilled pilot, made it a very difficult target. Theres a number of accounts of a lone Hayabusa dancing around four or more US aircraft.

Or take my favourite, the Supermarine Spitfire. If you take the Spitfire story as a whole, although I think the P-51 was a superb fighter, I think the Spitfire just edges it simply because the P-51 was designed with the benefit of two years combat experience. When Reginald Mitchell designed the Spitfire, he didn't have that benefit. Yet from its very first engagements, the Spitfire was proved to be "right" in almost every respect ( there was, of course, a couple of years of "fine-tuning" pre-war. There probably has never been a military aircraft that has been perfect from the word go ) - so right, that it stayed in production all through the war, the only Allied fighter to have been in production from before the war started to the end.

Yet, of course, the Spitfire had its weaknesses - the early models were at a disadvantge in a dive compared to the Me-109, and it had a much shorter range than the P-51. But then, the Spitfire had been designed as a defensive fighter...

...like I say, its all rather subjective...

[David Hingtgen]

Of course, in a true dogfight, I'd want a fairly early F-16C. Block 30A or so.

PS---MiG-25's at speed can't turn worth sh*t. If there's any fighter a Phoenix could hit, it'd be an intercepted MiG-25.

[Lightning]

(oops sorry, double post, my first one, lol)

Edited January 16, 2004 by Lightning 06

[Lightning]

Of course, in a true dogfight, I'd want a fairly early F-16C.  Block 30A or so.   

PS---MiG-25's at speed can't turn worth sh*t.  If there's any fighter a Phoenix could hit, it'd be an intercepted MiG-25. 

I agree with DH here, the F-16 can out-turn almost everything in existence today, bar the Flanker and F/A-22, and one thing many people who talk about fighters overlooks is the fact the F-16 has more RANGE than the F-15, so it can fire from a distance with the AMRAMMS, and knife fight with the Sidewinders and the Vulcan. (if they coulda found a way to solid mount that 30mm gunpod they were testing it would be even better!)

also on the MiG-25 thingy, they can only pull 4G's (the wings cant do anything more than that fully loaded)

[91WhiskeyM6]

By the way,  the "experts" nominated the P-51D and the Eagle as the best fighters of all times. What are your credentials and the credibility of your sources?

I'm sorry, but I can't let that one go. Anything with "expert opinion" like that is going to rather subjective. If theres one thing I've learned from reading about air combat its that no one aircraft is entirely superior to another.

For example, take the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa ( "Oscar" ) of W.W. II. BY late W.W. II standards, it was obselete - slow, poorly armed and very lightly built. Yet pilots flying such heavily armed, fast and sturdy aircraft as P-38 Lightnings learned to be careful when taking them on, because the agility of the Hayabusa, even by late war standards, and in the hands of a skilled pilot, made it a very difficult target. Theres a number of accounts of a lone Hayabusa dancing around four or more US aircraft.

Or take my favourite, the Supermarine Spitfire. If you take the Spitfire story as a whole, although I think the P-51 was a superb fighter, I think the Spitfire just edges it simply because the P-51 was designed with the benefit of two years combat experience. When Reginald Mitchell designed the Spitfire, he didn't have that benefit. Yet from its very first engagements, the Spitfire was proved to be "right" in almost every respect ( there was, of course, a couple of years of "fine-tuning" pre-war. There probably has never been a military aircraft that has been perfect from the word go ) - so right, that it stayed in production all through the war, the only Allied fighter to have been in production from before the war started to the end.

Yet, of course, the Spitfire had its weaknesses - the early models were at a disadvantge in a dive compared to the Me-109, and it had a much shorter range than the P-51. But then, the Spitfire had been designed as a defensive fighter...

...like I say, its all rather subjective...

You're no expert.

[91WhiskeyM6]

Of course, in a true dogfight, I'd want a fairly early F-16C. Block 30A or so.

PS---MiG-25's at speed can't turn worth sh*t. If there's any fighter a Phoenix could hit, it'd be an intercepted MiG-25.

I'd take the 15 cause it's superior ALL AROUND.

[91WhiskeyM6]

[

The F-15 was designed to go into somebody's "MAP", establish itself as the neighborhood bully and kick-ass(reborn P-51D Mustang)! The Tomcat was designed to shoot from long range....*yawn* When the Russians developed the Flanker, they did that in response to the teen fighters, but primarily in GOD's fear of the Eagle. That's why you see side-by-side pictures of these two as the best fighters out there 10 years ago. Do you see any pics of the Flanker and Tomcat together?

So you want to compare records eh? You "yawn" at engaging targets at range. Well, which aircraft has the higher friendly fire instances? The EAGLE. Your precious Eagle also tries to engage at a distance, otherwise they would've been close enough to visually confirm Friend or foe and prevent those tragic accidents. Capt. America said it best the Tomcat would distinguish targets better, faster, and farther away. Hate to break it to you but pilots WANT to engage from a distance so they have a higher probability of seeing their families again.

You also say the Tomcat is much older than the Eagle. Personally I don't think they are that far apart but if you want to believe that, that's fine. So your "newer" fighter is constantly being compaired to an inferior aircraft. Here I thought Newer would meen better. The Eagle does NOT out perform the Tomcat out right. Nor does the Tomcat out perform the Eagle out right!

You said it yourself, the Eagle was designed to climb up and catch mig-25's. The Tomcat was designed for Fleet Defense. Take those two variables away and you have a pretty even matching...between a "newer" fighter and an "older" fighter!

Chris

P.S. The Friendly fire reference is not meant to show a flaw in the Eagle or anybody for that matter. It is meant to show that Fighters want to engage at a Distance.

uhhh, the 14 is older. The 14 was a follow up to the F-111 Aardvark originally proposed by the Navy to carry the Phoenix missile.

Check your facts.

[91WhiskeyM6]

The Mig-25 with ample warning can avoid the Phoenix. A TU-95 Bear has no chance.

[F-ZeroOne]

You're no expert.

No, I'm not, and I never claimed to be.

On the other hand, the information about the Hayabusa is directly taken from accounts from P-38 pilots. If they're not qualified to comment, who is? The Spitfire information has been gleaned from several different sources, one of which is The Most Dangerous Enemy, a book by Dr. Stephen Bungay - who is currently a consultant for the UK Channel 4 programme "Spitfire Ace".

The point I am trying to make is that any poll of that kind can be highly subjective.

Edit: didn't mean to quote the whole discussion first time round.

Edited January 16, 2004 by F-ZeroOne

[Dobber]

Double post

Edited January 16, 2004 by Dobber

[Dobber]

Another thing, the 14 is much older than the 15,

I never said the Tomcat wasn't older. I merely question your idea of MUCH older.

So to you 1 year and 5 months is considered MUCH older. F-14 Dec. 1970, F-15 July 1972. FACT

YOU check your facts

Chris

Edited January 16, 2004 by Dobber

[GreatMoose]

Whiskey, you need to be very careful when you slam somebody for not being an "expert." Do you have some credentials you'd like to put on the table proving you to be an expert? Seriously, relax. Everybody's entitled to thier own opinion.

Oh, I know it's an aim-54c. Typo.

[Göönk]

I thought we were happy to discuss together.

Let's have a beer and tell dirty jokes.

If I had to choose between F15 and F14 I would take the F14 because Tom Cruise piloted it

Do I have to check my facts?

Oh yeah, he didn't, he was an actor. Still, I like it

By the way, you can see F-14s in the new anime "Area 88" (check your bittorrent links).

The ep. 1 shows one which is really well drawn. I think it's 3D model. I let it to you to choose what revision of F14 it is. Experts

Edited January 16, 2004 by Göönk

[captain america]

The Mig-25 with ample warning can avoid the Phoenix. A TU-95 Bear has no chance.

Whiskey: a Mig 25 can evade an AIM-54 with ample warning, you say??????

Quick reality check for you: if your Mig 25 is travelling at say... A conservative Mach 1.5, and an incoming AIM-54 Phoenix is travelling straight at you at Mach 2.8 ( it has a relative speed of mach 3, by the way), that means a relative closure speed of Mach 4.3, which is almost TWICE the speed at which the best rifle bullets travel at.

Now we both know that the F-14's Phoenix missiles were used to shoot down big russian bombers, but they also had a secondary capability of using the Phoenix to shoot down incoming missiles, and knowing this, do you HONESTLY think that you, in your fast-in-a-straight-line, slow-turning Mig 25 would have a GHOST of a chance of out-turning or dodging a Phoenix; ESPECIALLY with the crude (read pre-historic) ECM/EXCM systems on board?

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on your choice of fighter, as is everyone else on here, but when you start sticking-it to people, questionning their reference sources, and then making a blatantly-stupid comment like the one above, you're just ASKING for trouble.

Oh, and unless you can produce scanned documents/diplomas of your own engineering "prowess", have proof that you've flown one/all these aricraft, or have access to HARD data on their performance, then you're just doing what ALL of us here are doing: speculating and making guesses based on what you/we've seen, read, or been told.

So PLEEEEASE, no more "you're on crack" comments, or insulting stabs at people of that nature. Antagonistic insults aren't going to make your life better, and certainly won't do anything to improve things here in the MW forums.

Thank you,

[Göönk]

Usually when I read arguments in forum I change the topic of the discussion and add new elements of fun and jokes etc... it helps to relax them

[GreatMoose]

Pie is good.

Cake is good.

Mouse is better.

[Coota0]

Captain America, I've got to disagree with your assesment of the closing speed. On the surface you're absolutley right. The one thing you have to take into account with closing speeds and teh AIM-54 is that unlike the most air-to-air missiles (didn't want to say all because I would get my ass jumped if I was wrong) the AIM-54 climbs like 5,000 feet and then dives down on it's target from above. So the missile leaves the rail a certain speed, climbs, the motor cuts, and then the missile dives on it's target.

The Soviet tactic to counter the AIM-54 in a fighter was to pull into the vertical, then pull the fighetr either to thr right or the left and caontinue your climb, the AIM-54 was supposed to have trouble hitting you if you did that. Can a Mig-25/31 avoid one that way? I don't know, I can sim it or I guess I can ask one of my instructors.

P.S. America I don't want you to think I'm sandbagging you, your logic was sound, it's just that the AIM-54 is quirky.

[captain america]

Hi Coota.

Are you sure that the AIM-54 climbs and dives on its target?

Here's a little technical blurb explaining the MO of the phoenix:

"When an AIM-54A is launched, its Rocketdyne MK 47 or Aerojet MK 60 solid-fueled rocket motor (in an MXU-637/B propulsion section) propels it to a speed of Mach 4+. For mid-course guidance, the missile's AN/DSQ-26 guidance section employs an autopilot, which gets regular target position updates by semi-active radar tracking. The FCS radar periodically illuminates every target to which a missile has been dispatched. For maximum range, the missile flies an optimized high-altitude trajectory for reduced drag, and the AIM-54A can engage head-on targets at a distance of up to 135 km (72.5 nm). For the final 18200 m (20000 yds) of the interception, the Phoenix switches to active radar homing for high terminal accuracy. Minimum engagement range is about 3.7 km (2 nm), in which case active homing is used from the beginning. The 60 kg (132 lb) MK 82 blast-fragmentation warhead is detonated by a fuzing system consisting of a MK 334 radar proximity, an IR proximity, and an impact fuze. "

The whole article can be found here:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html

Basically, the missile travels at an optimized higher altitude for reduced drag and optimized range, but it's still designed to hit incoming targets head-on, and according to Raytheon, is designed to shoot-down high-performance, highly-manoeuvrable fighters at either high or low altitudes, supersonic bombers, and even sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, though there are certainly better weapons available for the latter role.

Considering the crudeness of russian electronics and ECM systems, something like a Mig 25/31 would probably end up pulverized in a standoff.

[Skull Leader]

You're no expert.

Neither are you. Quit acting like you are.

I merely stated an opinion. The only facts I pointed to were the service records. BOTH of which are outstanding. I wasn't really picking one or the other. People are allowed to have their own opinions (that means ALL of us)

Edited January 16, 2004 by Skull Leader