parsifal
Colonel
too much Benny Hill I think
F-14 vs F-15 vs F-16
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SoD Stitch
Banned
Having said that, I would have to say my favorite is the F-15E "Mud Hen"; you have the best of both worlds: a truly superlative mud mover that can still mix it up with the best air-to-air fighters in the world.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
20mikemike
Airman
- 10
- Feb 11, 2009
Just to set the record straight, there was some inaccurate info posted about AIM/ACE with the F-14 vs the F-15:
"Durning ACEVAL/AIMVAL at nellis between 1975-78 the USAF tried to validate tactics and types of missiles. Near the end of this engagement a forbidden conflict was arranged(F14 vs F15). The outcome was classified for quite a while, not so much for intel but for political sensitivities.
It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)"
That is not what happened at all. The first part is true enough, the Tomcat and Eagle drivers were NOT to engage each other at all, and yes it was a politically sensitive time for both programs. At that point, Japan was looking into buying the F-15. What really happened was that Joe "Hoser" Satrapa and Bill "Hill Billy" Hill were in Tomcat #1, while Dan "Turk" Pentecost and "Fearless" Frank Schumacher were in Tomcat #2 and went 2v2 against AIM/ACE F-15's. It was GUNS ONLY, no AIM-54's, no AIM-7's, no AIM-9's. The Tomcats descimated the Eagles, not vice-versa. Hoser and Turk planned to split the fight into two 1v1's, one high, one low with fair lateral separation, and that is what they executed at the onset of the fight. It didn't take long for both F-14's to get on the tails of the F-15's.
Hoser has a shot of his pipper right on the Eagle driver's head, about 250' away, master arm ON, but with no rounds remaining:
Turk gunned his own Eagle just after Hoser got his and asked about Turk's status, getting 2 contacts about 10k feet above his own plane. Turk sounded "mildly offended" when Hoser asked who was out front...
Although it was supposed to be a secret, some of the top AF brass got wind when the fight got published in Aviation Week and Japan was wondering if the Eagle was the best way to go; history shows us that they went through with that purchase. The full gun-track video still exists, but good luck finding it, IIRC Hoser has the only copy!
Which is better? Whichever one has the better pilot in it (doesn't matter -14, -15 or -16.)
"Durning ACEVAL/AIMVAL at nellis between 1975-78 the USAF tried to validate tactics and types of missiles. Near the end of this engagement a forbidden conflict was arranged(F14 vs F15). The outcome was classified for quite a while, not so much for intel but for political sensitivities.
It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)"
That is not what happened at all. The first part is true enough, the Tomcat and Eagle drivers were NOT to engage each other at all, and yes it was a politically sensitive time for both programs. At that point, Japan was looking into buying the F-15. What really happened was that Joe "Hoser" Satrapa and Bill "Hill Billy" Hill were in Tomcat #1, while Dan "Turk" Pentecost and "Fearless" Frank Schumacher were in Tomcat #2 and went 2v2 against AIM/ACE F-15's. It was GUNS ONLY, no AIM-54's, no AIM-7's, no AIM-9's. The Tomcats descimated the Eagles, not vice-versa. Hoser and Turk planned to split the fight into two 1v1's, one high, one low with fair lateral separation, and that is what they executed at the onset of the fight. It didn't take long for both F-14's to get on the tails of the F-15's.
Hoser has a shot of his pipper right on the Eagle driver's head, about 250' away, master arm ON, but with no rounds remaining:
Turk gunned his own Eagle just after Hoser got his and asked about Turk's status, getting 2 contacts about 10k feet above his own plane. Turk sounded "mildly offended" when Hoser asked who was out front...
Although it was supposed to be a secret, some of the top AF brass got wind when the fight got published in Aviation Week and Japan was wondering if the Eagle was the best way to go; history shows us that they went through with that purchase. The full gun-track video still exists, but good luck finding it, IIRC Hoser has the only copy!
Which is better? Whichever one has the better pilot in it (doesn't matter -14, -15 or -16.)
Cdpaliden@yahoo.com
Recruit
- 2
- Feb 11, 2009
I would vote F-15. It carries the most payload. Sheer rule of probibility, if two pairs of fighters engage each other and one had ten mounts and the other has eleven, it means one pair can fire two more missiles. While it is unlikely that they would need that many, it never hurts. You can't ignore service record either.
mach driver
Recruit
- 2
- Oct 23, 2008
F-16 for Me.... The F-16 was the first use of a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire (RSS/FBW) flight control system, to achieve enhanced maneuver performance. Highly nimble, the F-16 can pull 9-g maneuvers and can reach a maximum speed of over Mach 2.
The Fighting Falcon includes innovations such as a frameless bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control during combat maneuvers, and reclined seat to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot. the F-16 has a better low speed handling characteristic verse the F-15 and F-14's the F-16 also has an unmatched roll rate which the F-15 and F-14 cant handle which makes the F-16 highly nimble. The major advantage that the F-16 has over the F-14's and F-15's the F-16 is virtually impossible to stall.The F-16 has the Better Energy Retention vs the Eagle and Tomcat.
F-16 vs F-14
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZyvY3n9GDY
F-16 vs F-15
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INb-421E-mo
The Fighting Falcon includes innovations such as a frameless bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control during combat maneuvers, and reclined seat to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot. the F-16 has a better low speed handling characteristic verse the F-15 and F-14's the F-16 also has an unmatched roll rate which the F-15 and F-14 cant handle which makes the F-16 highly nimble. The major advantage that the F-16 has over the F-14's and F-15's the F-16 is virtually impossible to stall.The F-16 has the Better Energy Retention vs the Eagle and Tomcat.
F-16 vs F-14
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZyvY3n9GDY
F-16 vs F-15
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INb-421E-mo
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
According to Paul Gilchrist, the F14D was superior as a multi purpose fighter. More lethal air to air and air to ground and superior in reliability and maintainability. Tragic that that AC is no longer operational. " A carrier air wing employing F14Ds in both the fighter and strike roles could field five squadrons of the best fighters in the world when needed in the maritime air superiority role. Then that same air wing could field five squadrons of long range, deep strike aircraft." Our Navy today does not have that capability!
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Ren, that's pretty much the lore I was raised on. Why no F-14 around today? What is the comparative worth of Boeing-McDAC vs Northrop-Grumman? How many people do each employ? Who has the best paid Lobby with factories in more states? 
Of course I have to admit to being extremely biased toward any Grumman product, even canoes. 
Of course I have to admit to being extremely biased toward any Grumman product, even canoes.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
High maintenance costs and they are SOBs to work on. When I was in the reserves we had some Reg Nav Tomcat fixers come into our squadron. They thought they died and gone to heaven working on the P-3, especially the ADs.
parsifal
Colonel
Joe
i believe you, but still the company sales pitch for the tomcat was about how low maintenance it was, especially compared to the F-4s it was replacing. was this just trash talk by the company to sell the aircraft??? what went wrong???
i believe you, but still the company sales pitch for the tomcat was about how low maintenance it was, especially compared to the F-4s it was replacing. was this just trash talk by the company to sell the aircraft??? what went wrong???
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Compared to the F-4, the F-14 was easy, so I'm told!
In the post Vietnam days, the F-14 was considered an easy aircraft to work on considering. Compare the F-14 with the F/A-18 and the F-14 is a royal pain.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
:
Never spoke to anyone about the maintenance issues. The -14s came aboard after my tour ended. I was simply besotted by their innovation and the Phoenix system. While performance early-on wasn't all that hot, once they got their proper engines, WoW! As I understand it, the F-14 A+ subsequent F-14D were the first US fighter capable of supercrusing.
I was also an early victim of proselytization by a Grumman propaganda film, no points for second place. I am a total sucker for those. All my critical mental faculties are suspended at the sight of swept wings. I won't go into what other mental-physiological changes I experience when I see them. I can still remember being impressed by Orion: Guardian of the Seas seen at Willow Grove when I was starting my retraining as a reserve P-3 type and the wings of that aircraft don't even have a degree of sweep! Truth be told, all it takes is wings.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upEbjlb0Lwo
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avbkPLxyjnE
My biggest issue with their replacement was the decrease in range perfomance coupled with the loss of the KA-6D tankers, CV aviation capability appeared to have been seriously degraded. I guess with the advent of the F-18E/F that's not so severe as it seemed back when.
The P-3's AD's did always seem a happier lot than those I met aboard ship. What a surprise!
Never spoke to anyone about the maintenance issues. The -14s came aboard after my tour ended. I was simply besotted by their innovation and the Phoenix system. While performance early-on wasn't all that hot, once they got their proper engines, WoW! As I understand it, the F-14 A+ subsequent F-14D were the first US fighter capable of supercrusing.
I was also an early victim of proselytization by a Grumman propaganda film, no points for second place. I am a total sucker for those. All my critical mental faculties are suspended at the sight of swept wings. I won't go into what other mental-physiological changes I experience when I see them
. I can still remember being impressed by Orion: Guardian of the Seas seen at Willow Grove when I was starting my retraining as a reserve P-3 type and the wings of that aircraft don't even have a degree of sweep! Truth be told, all it takes is wings.View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upEbjlb0Lwo
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avbkPLxyjnE
My biggest issue with their replacement was the decrease in range perfomance coupled with the loss of the KA-6D tankers, CV aviation capability appeared to have been seriously degraded. I guess with the advent of the F-18E/F that's not so severe as it seemed back when.
The P-3's AD's did always seem a happier lot than those I met aboard ship. What a surprise!
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
oldcrow, IMO, which is worth little, the Navy made a big mistake by choosing the Super Hornet over a Strike Tomcat. I do know two former Navy pilots who agree. One, I know personally. A retired Captain who flew A4s and A6s in VN and commanded Lexington. Another ,Paul Gillchrist, retired Rear Admiral. Gillchrist has written a book about the F14, which he flew. I have the book and he calls the Tomcat the most lethal fighter ever. When the Navy chose the Super Hornet, they chose lesser performance, lesser range, no zero WOD capability, less all around capability. His chapter 34 in his book," Tomcat, the F14 Story", entitled "The little fighter than can't" discusses the decision. Gillchrist's opinion is not just based on the Phoenix either. The decision to choose McDonnell over Grumman may have been political and may have been influenced by an overall reluctance in the Fighter Community of the Navy to embrace the air to ground role for the F14 until too late.
Because budget issues may prevent the Navy from being able to equip it's carrier battle groups with the next generation aircraft, we may be stuck with the Super Hornet for a long time with possible dire consequences.
Because budget issues may prevent the Navy from being able to equip it's carrier battle groups with the next generation aircraft, we may be stuck with the Super Hornet for a long time with possible dire consequences.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Strangely, I am sympathetic to both the points you make and those made by FlyboyJ. That's because, until recently, I really didn't appreciate how anyone could make the claim (now generally accepted I believe) that the Hurricane could have won the BoB without the Spitfire 
(yikes! where'd that thought train come from?). It just seemed absurd. However, I started thinking about the battle and the role played by logistics. Logistical performance, for want of a better phrase, seems to me to be a critical (if under appreciated) attribute for combat aircraft and based on FJ experience, it appears that keeping 48 high performing F-14s in the air would be significantly more difficult than keeping 48 F-18E/Fs operating. That's how I interpreted his post and if correct, then the navy may have lost one level of capabilty but gained another. Was the Spitfire's performance sufficiently superior to that of the Hurricane so that its replacement would have compromised the battle's outcome? It appears not. Was the F-14's performance so much better than that of the F-18E/F that it would still be as effective in fewer numbers due to the maintenance difficulties? I don't know and I should probably read more on the topic to form a more educated opinion.
I also have to caveat my opinion here with the admission to being VERY partial to any product of the Grumman iron works
(yikes! where'd that thought train come from?). It just seemed absurd. However, I started thinking about the battle and the role played by logistics. Logistical performance, for want of a better phrase, seems to me to be a critical (if under appreciated) attribute for combat aircraft and based on FJ experience, it appears that keeping 48 high performing F-14s in the air would be significantly more difficult than keeping 48 F-18E/Fs operating. That's how I interpreted his post and if correct, then the navy may have lost one level of capabilty but gained another. Was the Spitfire's performance sufficiently superior to that of the Hurricane so that its replacement would have compromised the battle's outcome? It appears not. Was the F-14's performance so much better than that of the F-18E/F that it would still be as effective in fewer numbers due to the maintenance difficulties? I don't know and I should probably read more on the topic to form a more educated opinion.I also have to caveat my opinion here with the admission to being VERY partial to any product of the Grumman iron works
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The P-3's AD's did always seem a happier lot than those I met aboard ship. What a surprise!
No boat - "RON" and you're own room most of the time (AD2 and higher).
