F-14 vs F-15 vs F-16

[renrich]

Interesting discussion. Keep up the good work. The Tomcat was not fly by wire which I heard that some pilots preferred.

 

[SoD Stitch]

Interesting discussion. Keep up the good work. The Tomcat was not fly by wire which I heard that some pilots preferred.

And neither is the F-15; AFAIK, only the F-16 and 5th-gen fighters have FBW.

 

[kool kitty89]

The Eagle wasn't originally FBW, all models retain the original mechanical controls, in addition to the later introduced FBW systems. (not sure when FBW was added, and if theye were full FBW or simpler computer assisted controls, hence my earlier question) And it can be flown satisfactorily with manual controls.

The F-16 was designed for FBW, and has no manual controls. It was designed with "relaxed static stability" which significantly enhanced maneuverability.

 

[kool kitty89]

Tomcat for me. Being able to deploy and rearm anywhere in the world is a big plus.

I assume you're referring to the carrier capability. Technically, both the F-15 (also as an alternative to the F-14) and F-16 had variants that were proposed as carrier aircraft for the USN, but they went for the F-18 instead.

Of course the F-14 is the only one of these 3 that was used operationally on carriers.

 

[SoD Stitch]

I assume you're referring to the carrier capability. Technically, both the F-15 (also as an alternative to the F-14) and F-16 had variants that were proposed as carrier aircraft for the USN, but they went for the F-18 instead.

Of course the F-14 is the only one of these 3 that was used operationally on carriers.

kk, was the F-16XL the carrier variant? Or was it earlier than that? I know the XL was entered into the dual-role fighter competition in the early '80's (which the Strike Eagle won), but I don't remember a carrier variant of the -16.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I assume you're referring to the carrier capability. Technically, both the F-15 (also as an alternative to the F-14) and F-16 had variants that were proposed as carrier aircraft for the USN, but they went for the F-18 instead.

Of course the F-14 is the only one of these 3 that was used operationally on carriers.

and it was actually the only one of the 3 that was actually underpowered in its original configuration.

 

[Thorlifter]

Since I am a jet idiot, what is Fly By Wire?

 

[Matt308]

No control cables from pedals/control column/throttle. All digital signals wherein pilot input is measured, digitized and thusly interpreted by individual flight control processors at each surface/engine/propeller.

Or just pretend its magic.

 

[SoD Stitch]

No control cables from pedals/control column/throttle. All digital signals wherein pilot input is measured, digitized and thusly interpreted by individual flight control processors at each surface/engine/propeller.

Or just pretend its magic.

LOL!

Matt, you do have a way of putting things!

All 5th-gen fighters (and even some bombers and airliners) have FBW flight control systems; in this era when it basically comes down to a computer that's actually flying the a/c, and the pilot is there to tell it what to do, it's pretty much the only way to build a/c now. It's also a way (though some pilots would argue differently) to prevent a pilot from doing something REALLY stupid, like getting his a/c into an inverted flat spin; if the computer, for whatever reason, decides that the input the pilot is giving it through the stick is bound to lead to disaster, it will not perform that function (like performing a reverse Immelman at 100' altitude). The pilot CAN override the flight control computer (or FCC), but it's usually not wise to do so; the FCC usually knows what the a/c is capable (or, in this case, not capable) of doing.

My father-in-law used to fly Boeing 747-400's, which had glass cockpits and FBW, and they were literally capable of landing themselves on the runway in any weather, day or night; he said the pilot could assume control of the a/c whenever he wanted to but, 99% of the time, there was no reason to, it was easier to just let the plane land itself.

 

[parsifal]

F-14/AIM -54 was a system never tested in combat, so i am at a losss as to how it can be concluded that a) it was a failure as a weapon system, b) it was only effective against soviet bombers....

During the 1989 Gulf of Sidra incident against the Libyan MiG-23s, it commonly misreported that they were engaged by Phoenix missiles....not true, in fact they were shot down by tight turning Tomcats hot on their tails firing sidewinders...

I would wager any day that the Tomcat has a competitive power to weight and is a very manouverable platform in the horizontal plane as well.

I would also argue that the main reason for the incomplete Phoenix loadouts was more related to the cost of such a weapons load, rather than any doubts about its effectiveness. Phoenix missiles are expensive little buggers....you dont go lugging them around the sky unless you have a need to

 

[Soren]

I would wager any day that the Tomcat has a competitive power to weight and is a very manouverable platform in the horizontal plane as well.

Completely agreed Parsifal. Infact the F-14 is probably the best of the three in the horizontal plane by a good amount. The high AR wings, and te ability to control the sweep in accordance to airspeed will give it an advantage in the production of lift drag, enabling higher lift to be generated while at the same time reducing drag.

 

[kool kitty89]

For this comparison are we talking about the F-15C, or is the Strike Eagle being included?

 

[Soren]

Every type included KK.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Completely agreed Parsifal. Infact the F-14 is probably the best of the three in the horizontal plane by a good amount. The high AR wings, and te ability to control the sweep in accordance to airspeed will give it an advantage in the production of lift drag, enabling higher lift to be generated while at the same time reducing drag.

Spoke to my father in law about this - he was a production F-15 test pilot. His comments to me was the F-15 could out accelerate and out turn the F-14. He felt the F-14's radar had some advantages but also felt the F-14 was more or a good "bomber killer" more than anything else. As far as maneuvability, he said there was no comparison, the F-15 has it hands down.

I guess the F-15 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and is also a 9G airframe. According to dad the F-14 is a 6G fighter.

 

[drgondog]

kk, was the F-16XL the carrier variant? Or was it earlier than that? I know the XL was entered into the dual-role fighter competition in the early '80's (which the Strike Eagle won), but I don't remember a carrier variant of the -16.

The VFAX was the USN version of the F-16. IIRC the XL was the delta wing variant.

Vought died (as a prime) because President Sol Love (as a former engineer) believed two things - one the F-16 was a better ship than the F-18 and, two he believed the Navy would comply with the congressional mandate that the Navy buy the winner of the USAF fly off between the F-16 and F-18.

1976.

 

[buzzard]

How one defines "flown correctly" is more dependent on context than doctrine. The majority of F-15 kills have been made by the IAF, and few, if any, of these kills were BVR. Given their success, few would argue that the IAF did not fly their Eagles 'correctly'...

As others have already mentioned, the AIM-54 is not a dogfighting weapon. Nor has its rare use in combat by the USN been at all successful. Two AIM-54 were launched against Iraqi MiG-25s during Desert Storm (IIRC) with no success. The Iranian AF claims to have used it successfully during the Iran-Iraq war, but confirming the details of these claims is problematic at best...

That said, the F-14's abilities are not contingent on the relative efficiency of the AIM-54. While the F-15 may have an edge in ultimate performance and avionics, the F-14 has the advantage of two crew members to operate the systems and scan the skies. These advantages may not be crucial in arenas where the US has overwhelming dominance, as in recent conflicts, but in a more hard-fought and chaotic contest with a comparative equal, they could well prove decisive. If the Viet Nam war taught the US military anything, it is that the enemy is not bound to comply with your 'correct' doctrine...

What happens in a roll-over like the Gulf Wars, or controlled exercise like Red Flag, is not necessarily what would happen in a hard-fought and chaotic close-quarter battle with a determined and technologically and tactically resourceful enemy. Radar and IFF are not infallible, and like all technologies, are vulnerable to countermeasures. Current BVR airfighting doctrine has not rendered the Mk I Eyeball obsolete, and in this department, the Tomcat has the clear advantage. The Eagle's slight performance advantage is not great enough to be decisive.

It's as much about context as it is 'numbers'.

 

[drgondog]

Spoke to my father in law about this - he was a production F-15 test pilot. His comments to me was the F-15 could out accelerate and out turn the F-14. He felt the F-14's radar had some advantages but also felt the F-14 was more or a good "bomber killer" more than anything else. As far as maneuvability, he said there was no comparison, the F-15 has it hands down.

I guess the F-15 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and is also a 9G airframe. According to dad the F-14 is a 6G fighter.

I just had a similar conversation. Except for the fact that the F-15C has a much lower wing loading, much higher thrust to weight ratio, is faster, can climb higher and accelerate in the climb much faster than the F-14, he says the F-14 isn't bad - just slow and heavy.

He did say that a.) you could store an F-14 in a smaller space, and b.) had a better radar. Do you suppose he was being sarcastic?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I just had a similar conversation. Except for the fact that the F-15C has a much lower wing loading, much higher thrust to weight ratio, is faster, can climb higher and accelerate in the climb much faster than the F-14, he says the F-14 isn't bad - just slow and heavy.

As he put it, the F-15 was a half a generation a head of the F-14

He did say that a.) you could store an F-14 in a smaller space, and b.) had a better radar. Do you suppose he was being sarcastic?

 

[drgondog]

As he put it, the F-15 was a half a generation a head of the F-14

The F-15 and F-16 were the truiumph of John Boyd's energy manueverability thesis - he won that war and lost his career but saved USAF fighter design from the 'do all' politicians at the Pentagon.

 

[Soren]

Hey guys, just talked to a friend of mine, a former Navy pilot, regarding this and he said that the F-14 turns better than all the rest hands down. He says the F-14 capable of sustaining 8.5G's until fuel runs out, although this isn't recommended and the airframe would have to undergo inspection afterwards. He says that at 350 knots the F-14 can pull 8.5 Gs while the Mig29, F-16, F-15 and F-18 can only pull about 8 Gs at the same speed. And like I mentioned earlier he states that the variable sweep wing gives the F-14 excellent manuverability for an aircraft so large and heavy, esp. in the horizontal, permitting this interceptor to also dogfight against the lighter USAAF fighters.

Furthermore the F-14 uses a lift-body design, giving it even greater lift in turns. He also said that the F-14 has been successfully outmanuvering smaller and lighter adversaries all through it's service life despite the fact that often it is nearly twice as heavy.

Part of the secret is the computer controlled variable geometry wings which automatically adjust for all flight aspects. This is a great help as it makes sure that drag is as low as possible when needed and lift is as high as possible when needed.

Another secret, he told me is its low wing loading for its size. Like the F-16, F-15, and many of the newer MiG and Sukoi types the F-14 obtains a sizable fraction of its lift from the design of the fuselage (The lift body design), keeping "wing loading" low.

According to him the F-15 climbs better though, but the F-14 will climb with an F-16 and out-accellerate most fighters in level flight.