zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) (01/19/91)
From: zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif)
My friend and I were discussing about the US jet fighters and
we finally came down to debating whether the F-14 is better than the
F-15(E). My opinion is besides the F-117 stealth fighter, there is
nothing more devastating and powerful in the sky than the F-14. My
friend, needless to say, holds a different opinion than that of mine.
My only reasoning is that the F-14 is the only jet fighter that is
able to carry the Phoenix missiles with their range over 100 miles,
while the F-15 is only equipped with Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles,
which in my opinion, are inferior to the Phoenix missiles. Of course,
the above argument sounds simplistic since neither of us is a student
of military studies and we seem to harp on the obvious.
Could someone provide me with the details of both planes. I
would appreciate if he/she could also give some expert opinions on
which jet fighter is superior than the other.
Thanks in advance
-----------------------------------------
-NorAazizam MohdAAsif || ARPA - zam@athena.mit.edu
-Goodale 104, 3 Ames St || BITNET - zam%mit@mitvma.mit.edu
-Cambridge, MA 02139 || UUCP - {..}!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!zam
------------------------------------------john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (01/22/91)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) > From: zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) > > My friend and I were discussing about the US jet fighters and we finally > came down to debating whether the F-14 is better than the F-15(E). You are comparing apples and oranges. The F-14 is a fleet defence plane. Its job is to make sure that there is no threat to a carrier within its sphere of operation. These threats would be incoming aircraft. The F-15E is a ground attack version of the F-15. Its job is to deliver bombs in any weather condition and be able to defend itself on the way out. You cannot compare these two rolls. Would you want an F-15 on a carrier? The landing gear would not survive the first carrier landing. If you compare a F-15C (ie, not the Strike Eagle) to a F-14 and ignore the differences in carrier vrs land based, you will have a fairly even match. Differences are mainly nits, such as the F-15 having slightly better thrust to weight ratio. The F-15 carries AMRAAM, whereas F-14 has the Pheonix. Both have shorter range missiles and small cannons. > My opinion is besides the F-117 stealth fighter, there is > nothing more devastating and powerful in the sky than the F-14. This is an even wilder comparison. The F-117 is not a fighter. It should have been called something like the A-13 (or A-12 back then, with the A-13 being the Avenger). The F-117 is designed to drop 2 2000 pound laser guided bombs on high valued targets. Not overly powerful, and not really devastating, but rather, a highly specialized single mission plane. From the film that we have seen on CNN, it looks like the F-117 does that job very well. Pilots report that they can get within 12 seconds of their target before being detected, which leaves very little time for any type of defense. Tomcats are not designed to carry any type of bombs, it is strictly a fighter. The Tomcat has the power to carry a heavy load, but it is difficult to put a lot of hard points on a swing wing plane. > My only reasoning is that the F-14 is the only jet fighter that is > able to carry the Phoenix missiles with their range over 100 miles, > while the F-15 is only equipped with Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, > which in my opinion, are inferior to the Phoenix missiles. The F-111A was designed around the Phoenix missile, but I doubt that any F-111's currently have the Phoenix mission--the F-111s currently are either long range light bombers or electronics planes. The Phoenix is extremely expensive. If you can get within the range of a Sparrow, you save your country quite a bit of cash. Plus, with the weight of a Phoenix, you can carry many more Sparrows. Rather than comparing planes for superiority, try matching planes to their missions. When aviation writers talk about air superiority fighters, the opinion is that the F-15 has no match. But I'm sure that you would do OK if you chose the F-14 instead. As far as a plane that fullfills its missions, I would just as soon have an A-10 Warthog painted up with teeth. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
john@karnak.cactus.org (John B. Meaders Jr.) (01/22/91)
From: john@karnak.cactus.org (John B. Meaders Jr.) In article <1991Jan19.043622.6577@cbnews.att.com> zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) writes: > > >From: zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) > > My friend and I were discussing about the US jet fighters and >we finally came down to debating whether the F-14 is better than the >F-15(E). My opinion is besides the F-117 stealth fighter, there is Two different missions for the F-14 and the F-15E. The F-15E is a fighter-bomber whose main purpose in life is ground attack. The F-14 is an air-superiority fighter whose main purpose in life is to control the skies. -- John B. Meaders, Jr. 510 Manchester Ct., Hopewell, VA 23860 Voice: 804-458-2983 Net: john@karnak.cactus.org or john@karnak.sigma.com Uucp: ...!{sequoia,letni,ditka}!karnak!john "Cowabunga dude" - TMNT
kjn@hrmso.att.com (Kenneth J Novak) (01/22/91)
From: kjn@hrmso.att.com (Kenneth J Novak) > From: zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) > > My friend and I were discussing about the US jet fighters and > we finally came down to debating whether the F-14 is better than the > F-15(E). ... Stuff deleted ... > My only reasoning is that the F-14 is the only jet fighter that is > able to carry the Phoenix missiles with their range over 100 miles, This is a MAJOR factor in A-A combat. > while the F-15 is only equipped with Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, > which in my opinion, are inferior to the Phoenix missiles. Inferior in range NOT accuracy. A friend of mine is currently in the Navy Aviation program in P-cola. Part of AOCS was memorizing mountains of information on weapons and aircraft. The F-14s track record is good largely due to the Pheonix missle. They can lock and fire on a target LONG before it's in range to fire back at you. "As for tight maneuvering, it's a pig." (quoted) In maneuverability, the F-15 probably has the edge in CLOSE A-A combat. Put these two against each other at 100 miles and my money's on the Tomcat. Ken Novak P.S. A BIG factor in air combat is the proficiency of the pilot. Top Gun instructors flying F-5's and A-4's REGULARLY beat the pants off their student pilots flying newer and more sophistocated aircraft.
zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) (01/23/91)
From: zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) In article <1991Jan22.014043.18325@cbnews.att.com> newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) writes: >> From: zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) >> >> My friend and I were discussing about the US jet fighters and we finally >> came down to debating whether the F-14 is better than the F-15(E). > > You are comparing apples and oranges. The F-14 is a fleet defence plane. > Its job is to make sure that there is no threat to a carrier within its > sphere of operation. These threats would be incoming aircraft. The comparison that I had in mind is between the F-14 and the F-15C, and my stating the F-15E in the original article was due to an error on my part. Based solely on memory, I was not sure which one is the one-seater F-15 which resembles the F-14, F-15C or F-15E, and obviously I chose the wrong one. I was not being specific enough in my original article and let me state here that I was comparing the two jet fighters, F-14 and F-15C based on their air-to-air combat ability. > You cannot compare these two rolls. Would you want an F-15 on a carrier? > The landing gear would not survive the first carrier landing. If you > compare a F-15C (ie, not the Strike Eagle) to a F-14 and ignore the > differences in carrier vrs land based, you will have a fairly even match. > Differences are mainly nits, such as the F-15 having slightly better thrust > to weight ratio. The F-15 carries AMRAAM, whereas F-14 has the Pheonix. > Both have shorter range missiles and small cannons. I was neglecting the fact that the F-14 is carrier-based while the F-15C is land-based. Let's assume the two jets have to slug it out in a dogfight, which jet would you like to be in? Since the two jets both are equipped with AIM-7, and AIM-9, I would say the only difference is the AMRAAM and AIM-54. My reason for choosing the F-14 is the AIM-54 which I believe is the best air-to-air missile available in the world today. Is this a good enough reason to justify my choice of F-14 over F-15C? ----------------------------------------- -NorAazizam MohdAAsif || ARPA - zam@athena.mit.edu -Goodale 104, 3 Ames St || BITNET - zam%mit@mitvma.mit.edu -Cambridge, MA 02139 || UUCP - {..}!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!zam ------------------------------------------
greg@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) (01/24/91)
From: Tigger <greg@sif.claremont.edu> Okay, numerous persons have pointed out that the F-14 and F-15 have different roles. By all accounts the F-14 is designed for fleet defense, and does its job quite well. The F-15, depending upon the variation and/or the person telling the story, is a great ground-pounder, close-quarters air-to-air combatant, and air superiority weapon. So where, in the overall scheme of things, does that leave my personal favorite 'sexy' plane, the F-16? I was under the impression that it was the close-quarters air-to-air king. It certainly doesn't carry the ordinance to be a groud-pounder. I believe that they are being used in the gulf, as I did see a shot of several of them landing on the news the other night, though I suppose that could have been file footage. Are they being used as escorts for the F-15E's, since those are carrying bombs rather than missiles? Also, where does the F/A-18 fit in? I was also under the impression that they are rather agile, since the Blue Angels use them, no? That would seem to earmark them for close air-to-air, but the "A" in their name would seem to indicate that they can also be used for ground attack. Finally, where will the ATF fit in, whichever model is chosen? Which of our current aircraft is is basically intended to replace? I realize that no official word has been released on weapons systems other than that Lockheed did fire a Sidewinder from one of the YF-22's internal bays, but can any of the well-informed readers of this newsgroup at least speculate? Greg Orman greg@pomona.claremont.edu
tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) (01/24/91)
From: tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) >From: kjn@hrmso.att.com (Kenneth J Novak) >> From: zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) >> My friend and I were discussing about the US jet fighters and we finally >> came down to debating whether the F-14 is better than the F-15(E). My >> opinion is besides the F-117 stealth fighter, there is nothing more >> devastating and powerful in the sky than the F-14. John Weeks has already covered this "apples to oranges" so I will pass. >> My only reasoning is that the F-14 is the only jet fighter that is able to >> carry the Phoenix missiles with their range over 100 miles, > This is a MAJOR factor in A-A combat. No, the major factor in A/A is experience. This is documented in a variety of studies. A 100 mile missile is not all that useful against another fighter, and historically, US pilots are usually not allowed to shoot at planes that they have not visually identified. >> while the F-15 is only equipped with Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, >> which in my opinion, are inferior to the Phoenix missiles. > Inferior in range NOT accuracy. Different missiles for different missions. The Phoenix is long range, the Sparrow medium range, and the Sidewinder is short range. > The F-14s track record is good largely due to the Pheonix missle. They can > lock and fire on a target LONG before it's in range to fire back at you. > "As for tight maneuvering, it's a pig." (quoted) The F-14 does not have a track record with the Phoenix missile. All US F-14 kills have been made with either the Sidewinder (3 firings, 3 kills), or the Sparrow (3 firings, 1 kill). Now for my questions. Can anyone document the A/A engagements that the US has had so far in this war? I would like to know the US plane, the Iraqi plane and the weapon used. Dates, pilots (if released) would be nice also. Also, does anyone have the names of the F-14 pilots that killed the Mig's near Libya in early January 1989? Their names were not immediately released for security reasons, and I never followed up on getting them. --
madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) (01/25/91)
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) In <1991Jan24.035146.21888@cbnews.att.com> tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) writes: >No, the major factor in A/A is experience. This is documented in a variety >of studies. A 100 mile missile is not all that useful against another >fighter, and historically, US pilots are usually not allowed to shoot at >planes that they have not visually identified. I saw a news show a couple of years ago, which commented that the F-14 could detect and fire upon targets well before the target could even see the F-14. However, because there is a time lag between the release of the missile and contact with the target and because the F-14 needs to maintain radar contact with the missile (i.e. keep missile in a narrow area in front of plane), less sophisticated and cheaper planes could, in the time lag, detect and fire off their own missiles. Result two planes gone, one expensive and one cheap. The "aggressor" plane used in the test was unique in that the R&D money came not from the government, but the manufacture. It think it was the TigerII, but I would not bet my life on that. max abramowitz madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu my opinions are my own
pkh@cbnewsi.att.com (Kenneth Novak) (01/27/91)
From: pkh@cbnewsi.att.com (Kenneth Novak) In article <1991Jan24.034935.21643@cbnews.att.com>, Tigger <greg@sif.claremont.edu> writes: > > Also, where does the F/A-18 fit in? I was also under the impression that > they are rather agile, since the Blue Angels use them, no? That would seem > to earmark them for close air-to-air, but the "A" in their name would seem > to indicate that they can also be used for ground attack. > Yes, the F/A-18 IS used for ground attack. A friend of mine is an ex-marine from 2nd Recon. Batt. On one his jaunts into the woods dressed up like a bush, his team called in a live air strike. After the radio man called up the coordinates, the last thing he heard was "Roj-O on the pop ...". Talk about unleashing a whole lot of hate, WHEW! He couldn't believe all that fury came from ONE little plane! (Needless to say, the target was termed destroyed) Ken
SMPOD@VENUS.LERC.NASA.GOV (01/28/91)
From: SMPOD@VENUS.LERC.NASA.GOV
In article kjn@hrmso.att.com (Kenneth J Novak) writes...
/The F-14s track record is good largely due to the Pheonix
/missle. They can lock and fire on a target LONG before it's in range
/to fire back at you. "As for tight maneuvering, it's a pig." (quoted)
/
/In maneuverability, the F-15 probably has the edge in CLOSE A-A combat.
/Put these two against each other at 100 miles and my money's on the
/Tomcat.
That assumes that the F14 and Phoenix radars are 'unjammable' and that the
Phoenix can catch aircraft flying nap of the earth.john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (02/04/91)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) >From: Tigger <greg@sif.claremont.edu> > So where, in the overall scheme of things, does that leave my personal > favorite 'sexy' plane, the F-16? The USAF would like to equip all of its fighter units with F-15's, but the cost of the F-15 makes this all but impossible. The 'Electric Jet' was developed as a low cost highly manuverable fighter for the USAF. It has since been adapted to an attact roll as the proposed A-16 which is slated to replace the A-10. F-16s have replaced many of the remaining F-4's in USAF inventory. > Also, where does the F/A-18 fit in? The Hornet is descended from the F-17 Cobra, which lost out to the F-16 in a USAF fly-off for the F-16 roll. McDonnel-Douglas adapted the F-17 for carrier operation, then totally revamped the Cobra to make the F-18. The Navy still had a number of F-4's in service and they could not justify buying the very expensive Tomcat to replace the F-4s. The A-7 Coursair II was also nearing the end if its service life. So the Navy bought into the F-18 concept to replace the F-4s with F-18 fighters, and the A-7s with A-18 attack planes. As it turned out, the F-18 could do perform rolls with the same basic configuration, so the two projects were folded into the F/A-18 which both the Navy and the Marines fly. It is used as a fighter, as escort for the heavy attack planes (A-6), and as a light attack bomber. > Finally, where will the ATF fit in, whichever model is chosen? The F-15 is currently the top air superiority fighter available. But it might be equalled or surpassed in the 90's. There are plans for advanced European fighters, the Su-27 is quite impressive, and the Mig-31 is an unknown quantity. The big questions is whether to come up with a better F-15 based on a 20 year old design, or start from scratch. Since a number of new technologies have been explored in the past 20 years, the decision was to propose an advanced fighter. Some of the mission parameters include stealthieness and super-cruise (flying supersonic without using after-burners). The Navy faces much the same problem. The Tomcats are getting old. The will all need new engines at some point. There have been Tomcat variants proposed, such as the F-14A+ and the SuperTomcat. Both are very impressive, but they again are based on a 25 year old design. And the Navy would like to have some measure of stealth. The Lockheed YF-22 Lightning II and the McDonnel-Douglas YF-23 were funded in 1986 for two prototypes each. The USAF may choose one of these, or it might try to make the F-15 last another generation. The big question that will need to be answered are either of these new planes good enough to warrant the expense? The Navy has been encouraged to choose one of these planes to replace the Tomcat. The choosen plane would have to be modified for carrier operation. My personal opinion is that the USAF will pick one of the ATF for a small production run, improve some of the F-15s, then wait for the next generation. I personally like the F-23, it looks totally cool. I do not see the Navy going for either ATF plane based on its F-111 experience. Besides, could anyone sleep at night knowing that the Navy did not have a Grumman 'cat plane flying fleet defense? -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
34X3TAN%CMUVM.BITNET@VM1.gatech.edu (JEFF KAVANAUGH) (02/04/91)
From: JEFF KAVANAUGH <34X3TAN%CMUVM.BITNET@VM1.gatech.edu>
I wish to add some information to this:
The F-14D also has the ability to fire the AIM-120 AMRAAM missle as well
as the AIM-54C PHOENIX. The AIM-120 has a range of 40-50 nmi and is
ment to replace
the Sparrow III, where the AIM-54C has a range of at least 125 nmi. It's
radar is the APG-71 system which has greater data processing
capability, and greater range. Also, the D-model is fitted with
General-Electric F110 turbofans which eliminates the power problems
with earlier models (it doesn't need afterburn-
ers for takeoff). The only advanatages the F-15E has is that it is
better in the ground attack role, it has a higher thrust to weight(?),
and it is margin- ally faster.
Jeff Kavanaugh