F-14 Radar and Targetting superior to F-15?

reply to post by Luke.S


and as the israelies put it: vs people who would have gotten kicked out of the sky even if they had the best plane sin the world.

reply to post by tomcat ha


Please where did you get the data 20º/Sec? I searched Everywhere for F-14B/D dog fighting capabilities and nothing but rumors, some say it is a god , some say it is bad. Nothing with data. Does F-14B/D have beater turn rate and beater minimum turn radius than F-15C? Does anyone know the instantaneous and continuous turn rate of F-14B/D at LOW and HIGH altitudes, and at LOW and HIGH speeds? How come a higher T/W ratio make a plane beater dog fighter by default ? Because the only info is that F-15C has a higher T/W ratio over F-14B/D.

F-14 had a very high instantanous turn rate, however it would bleed energy and airspeed faster than an F-15 or F-16. More thrust means you can keep turning instead of having to ease off because you are getting too slow.

One of my friends that flies F-16s has said something similar about F/A-18s, that they have a really great first turn they can do, but at that point, have gotten slow and if they did not get a kill on that first turn, they are vulnerable. An F-16 can regain energy much faster than an F/A-18

The Tomcat could have really made use of 3d thrust-vectoring to help in offsetting the airspeed it bleeds as it maneuvers - though, really, the aircraft is a much better supersonic performer than most other aircraft due to the swing-wing design.

I believe the airframes were rated at a lower G-tolerance than most standard fixed-wing aircraft - which is going to limit its practical maneuvering capability even though the design is capable of far more radical maneuvers.

That said, the Tomcat-21 and Quick-Strike variants proposed would have been very capable and adaptable airframes. Presuming they would have been progressively updated with solid-state planar arrays and data systems as well as enhanced optical and infra-red imaging systems; they would be one of the few aircraft in use today that could actually utilize BVR combat.

The big thing with ROE anymore is the need to put eyes-on the target and confirm it is hostile - which pretty much negates the advantage of being able to shoot it before you can see it.

In either case, both the F-15 and F-14 have some fairly impressive service records. The F-14 suffered from a maintenance-intensive airframe and some early engine problems - not to mention something close to 90% of the fleet was all original A-model airframes (some upgraded to the B). Any 30+ year old airframe is going to rack up quite a bit of time being serviced.

I think the Tomcat 21 would have been quite an aircraft, and the F-14B/D thrust was supposed to be what the F-14 was to have all along. The TF30 was just meant to be an interim engine, but then the cuts of the mid/late 70s, meant the F-14 was stuck with an engine that was really not up to par for lots of manuervering and throttle jockeying. TF-30 was fine for an F-111, but was the weak point of the F-14A.

The F/A-18 E/F models leave me feeling a bit underwhelmed, but apparently those have some very cool radar/ecm electrical gizmos in them.

hmm imagine the possibilities of an Electronic warfare version of the Tomcat. And it would still keep it's weapon hard points due to the size of the airframe.

Oh to wish that they would find a use for the Tomcat again.

The F-14 and F-18 are two different roles. The F-18 is considered a 'strike' aircraft, but I would consider it more of a support role, closer to the F-16 (indeed, it was developed out of the same need for a lightweight fighter). The Super-Hornet is really an evolution of the idea that overhauls the avionics and gives the aircraft more hardpoints to work with while addressing some of the shortfalls in the air-to-air capabilities of the F-18C.

I wouldn't really call the F-18 a strike aircraft so much as I would call it a multirole support aircraft.

The 'Tomcat 21' (and some of the other similar ideas tossed out by Northrop-Grumman) would have been overhauled to be a 'door-kicker' delivering sustained supersonic performance with state of the art optics, infra-red and EW suites capable of augmenting the multi-role radar. The Tomcat was already being used to deliver unguided and some laser guided ordnance - few things would say "good morning" like a couple tomcats busting up everything on the tarmac with a volley of JSOWs and ruin the runway with JDAMs. Seeing as the tomcat could carry that load without severe aerodynamic penalty, it would still have supercruise while loaded with even some heavier GBU-31s and 32s.

However, were I to make a personal suggestion - I'd reconfigure the outboard pylons to accept a single Aim-120 (or updated Aim-54) along with a pair or, if possible, a quartet of Aim-9 rails with the possibility to reconfigure for a pair of Aim-120s there, instead. I'd have to check the dimensions - but I'm fairly certain it could be done (though probably with a pretty harsh impact to supersonic performance).

Though I would love to see an Aim-54 "MRIVed" - several kilometers away, it acquires separate targets identified by the launch aircraft and unleashes a spray of a few smaller missiles (likely IR guided - but with advances in radar technology, they could probably beam-ride from the 54's own radar - synthetic AESA-SA radars allow for several 'virtual' beams - so it's possible, if not overly complex).

I've actually put a little thought into how a booster the size of the Aim-54 could be used - you could launch it into a high ballistic arc, where, at the apex, the nose separates and automatically inflates a large helium balloon - the section can then function, temporarily (dictated by power storage technology) as a communications relay or even as an aid to over-the-horizon radar. Depending upon how far along booster technology has actually come, it *may* be possible to place the nose in a low, temporary (a few hours, to a few days at most) orbit.

Of course - developing the ability to do that from an aircraft as opposed to a ship or land-based installation may be more of a novelty than anything else. There is also the development of drones to think about, as well - which be capable of performing many of the same duties (and are reusable).

But, hey, when you are carrying around a missile that has the potential to be the aircraft-equivalent of a NIKE Zeus - you've got to keep your imagination open to ideas.

May sound like a frivolous pursuit of the mind - but trust me, the Tomcat will fly again..... or something carrying its spirit will.

Well the F-14 is not flying again, except for Iranian aircraft. With regards to the USN, it is not flying again in any form, and you have not seen any swing wing aircraft introduced since the 1970s, and there are none on the way anywhere. With the advances in engines along with computerized engineering, you can make a good enough compromise in a well designed wing to not need a swing wing.

The mechanism for that, added a fair amount of weight to the F-14 and F-111..

And the AIM-54 has long ago been retired, earlier than the F-14 actually. The Aim-120 could have easily been fielded on the F-14, and the testing had been done for that I believe. But with the USN retiring of the F-14 being on the horizon, they did not want to pay to finish the project on an aircraft that would be gone soon

reply to post by firepilot


Aircraft have come and gone in history, but many of the design concepts come full circle.

Variable geometry will return and be even more extreme than swinging wings. Even the simple swing-wing has unmatched performance in the skies. Future renditions will use some fairly interesting material that will allow the wing to alter its entire three dimensional shape - similar to the behavior of a person's tongue (just more wing-like).

In either case - just because the aircraft was retired does not mean it could not be succeeded in concept and design. It also does not mean the aircraft cannot see a revival outside of standard military forces (inside or outside of the U.S.).

The same goes for the Phoenix. Simply because it's been retired does not mean it will never again see the light of day, or that it is useless.

Remember - the military is RARELY about performance, and ALWAYS about politics regarding inventory and changes thereof. As far as politicians are concerned, the Military is the most convenient way of bringing home jobs and pork to their home states - who cares what is actually being built there and if it is any good.

A reason I would not make a good Admiral/General - I don't like to play the political game.

So - be it a good idea or a bad idea - the 'spiritual successor' to the F-14 will, in time, become part of the military. It may be a few generations of airframes before that happens, or it could be the next - but it is only a matter of time before the political winds turn back in favor of an aircraft that fills the role the F-14 used to fill.

The same goes for a long ranged missile like the Aim-54. The AMRAAM succeeded the Sparrow system; and something will eventually take the place of the Phoenix. No - this will not be the AMRAAM-D, but it will be a large long range missile - capable of greater ranges than the Phoenix was, and of carrying a more diverse payload (application of new technologies).

So - be it a good idea or a bad idea - the 'spiritual successor' to the F-14 will, in time, become part of the military. It may be a few generations of airframes before that happens, or it could be the next - but it is only a matter of time before the political winds turn back in favor of an aircraft that fills the role the F-14 used to fill.

The problem with that is, that the F-14 was envisioned as a Fleet Defense fighter, using its AWG-9 radar and AIM-54, against hordes of incoming Soviet bombers intent on attacking a carrier battle group. The numbers of such bombers existing has diminished greatly, and its not the biggest threat to a carrier anymore.

the USN has moved away from dedicated specialized aircraft like they used to have. Before, you had the F-14 for fleet defence, KA-6 for tankering, EA-6B for ECM, S-3 for ASM, and A-6/A-7 then F/A-18 for strike.

ASM is less active than it used to be, and most everything else on a carrier is being done with F/A-18s in a jack of all trades role, from air defence to strike to tanker and now ECM coming up with the F/A-18G. Soon, the only combat aircraft on USN carriers will be F/A-18 variants, with Seahawk helicopters for rescue, and E-3 Hawkeyes for AWACS.

The days of several dedicated combat aircraft types on a carrier will be a distant memory soon. not saying that in a good or bad way, just that is the way it is.

reply to post by firepilot

The problem with that is, that the F-14 was envisioned as a Fleet Defense fighter, using its AWG-9 radar and AIM-54, against hordes of incoming Soviet bombers intent on attacking a carrier battle group. The numbers of such bombers existing has diminished greatly, and its not the biggest threat to a carrier anymore.

China is putting together quite the airforce. So is India. I fail to see how having an aircraft in the air with a very powerful such and tracking radar and long-ranged missile payload would be an 'unnecessary' precaution.

the USN has moved away from dedicated specialized aircraft like they used to have. Before, you had the F-14 for fleet defence, KA-6 for tankering, EA-6B for ECM, S-3 for ASM, and A-6/A-7 then F/A-18 for strike.

It goes in cycles. We're back in the post-Korea aircraft design philosophy - "It can all be solved with bombers and all-in-one aircraft." Worked out well for aircraft like the F-105.

ASM is less active than it used to be, and most everything else on a carrier is being done with F/A-18s in a jack of all trades role, from air defence to strike to tanker and now ECM coming up with the F/A-18G. Soon, the only combat aircraft on USN carriers will be F/A-18 variants, with Seahawk helicopters for rescue, and E-3 Hawkeyes for AWACS.

And if a TU-160 comes at you with a bay full of SS-N-22s? You've got nothing with the power to intercept, no real time to enact countermeasures - you're left with hoping CIWS and RAAM can stop what's coming your way.

You don't even have a missile with the range to allow your airborne patrol to accelerate and get within firing range to intercept. Your effective patrol has to be at a bare minimum of a 50 kilometer radius. If you're at the opposing side of your patrol radius - you will have to traverse 50 kilometers just to pass over the ship you are trying to protect (this is not even taking into account a fleet - which will be spread out over a few dozen kilometers). You need to have your aircraft capable of putting a missile into an encroaching target before it can get into its own effective missile range.

To do that - you need an aircraft with a very powerful radar, a long range missile, and the ability to nail a target only a few meters of the surface (sure - they can come in high altitude, but that would give fleet defenses much more warning and make a nice target for SAMs).

Sure - I suppose you could wait until someone carries out a successful strike on a carrier task force before you start addressing the solution to fleet defense.... but you're not going to be able to put it into serviceable numbers any time soon - at which point, you're running around with a clearly labeled "off" switch for anyone with the guts and gear to toggle.

The days of several dedicated combat aircraft types on a carrier will be a distant memory soon. not saying that in a good or bad way, just that is the way it is.

It will change. It always does. It goes in cycles - newer people are coming up through the ranks pumped full of ideology and bedazzled by the wonders of technology. They'll have to wait to get their pride hurt before they realize it's not as simple as flipping a switch.

It is the history of aviation. We built a number of dedicated designs - the F-86, F-104, B-52, etc - then built a number of general-purpose frames, the F-105, F-4, and the like - then we got shocked in Vietnam and had to rethink our strategy - and build more specialized aircraft like the F-15, F-16, F-14, F-18, F/B-111, etc. Now we are swinging back the other way.

Certain roles in aviation can be blended. Others, however, cannot. In another 5-10 years, we'll be going back to more dedicated airframes with better matching of performance characteristics and the roles those aircraft are to fill. And the 'next 14' will be part of that, just as the 'next 15' will, as well (and, no, I do not mean the F-22).

As one of my pilots said =gee I see an AIM-54 coming……5 g turn later I’m fine. I see an AIM-120 fired -I’m #ting my pants and praying for a good afterlife….

The Tomcat was a great fighter, too bad they didn’t remake it. Too bad the fighter will soon be gone because of the ever growing drone technology. The F-22 is dead really and the JSF isn’t what anyone wanted either and will never be….
We are a crumbling superpower.


[edit on 29-6-2010 by Steve8511]

Luckily a few people who sound close to know have left a few names out of this. With the missing facts over performance not being mentioned I can answer your question as far as my knowledge goes.

The f14 is inferior to the f15 in the majority of its aspects. Minus goldplating by blue suiters it would have lost even more.

As to the original question, I believe you aficionados missed something. The F- 15 was designed for air hunting.... I dont want to go dig it up but I dont remember if the design was based on the more organic system interfaces or if the designer was forced with the hardware garbage...

Missiles, you guys need to study a little more. Kinetic projectile throwers have the higher kill rate through history. I apologise if I sound insulting I was hoping this debate would include some more history but its lacking.

Certain roles in aviation can be blended. Others, however, cannot. In another 5-10 years, we'll be going back to more dedicated airframes with better matching of performance characteristics and the roles those aircraft are to fill. And the 'next 14' will be part of that, just as the 'next 15' will, as well (and, no, I do not mean the F-22).

Sorry, but thats wishful thinking. Its just not going to happen. The F-35 is the only real fixed wing manned Navy fighter project on the horizon, and that in itself is evidence of how the military aviation is undergoing a further consolidation of aircraft types.

Look at what the F-35 series is slated replace : F-16, F/A-18, A-10, AV-8B and other Harrier variants used in other countries. You are seeing more multiple aircraft roles fitted into one. As expensive as aircraft are getting, its just not affordable to have multiple specialized aircraft types.

While you think there is an urgent need to defend Carrier Battle Groups against TU-160s launching cruise missiles, the military disagrees and thinks the F/A-18E can pick up what remains of that role. Is the Super Bug a supersonic interceptor? No, But then the odds of Russia sending bombers after a US CBG is rather remote too, and there are other threats that are more important, pressing and likely

The odds of the USN coming out with another fleet defence fighter in the same role as the F-14, well the odds of that are nil. It aint happening. Nor are any swing wing aircraft going to be made again most likely. The F-14 was one of the "coolest" aircraft in military aviation history. But its initially envisioned role of defending the carrier against hordes of Soviet cruise missile tossing bombers has for the most part moved into the past.

Strategic bombers are extremely expensive and Russia having 16 TU-160s is certainly not justification for a whole new fleet defense aircraft. The F-22 and F-35 are expensive enough and even those numbers have been continually cut.

No way now how is the US Navy going to come up with funds for another new aircraft type, in light of how much the F-35 is costing. BUT, if you have evidence to the contrary (and I dont mean your own speculation) that the US Navy is considering reviving the fleet defense fighter, then by all means share it with us.






[edit on 30-6-2010 by firepilot]

Originally posted by Luke.S
oh and sorry for double post but I ran out of space. If I recall the F-15 has such a good A2A ratio because it usually goes up against much less advanced fighters such as the Mig 21 etc...

No kidding? Here is the combat record between F-15 and MiG-29


F-15 vs MiG-29 : 13:0


F-15 vs MiG-29 kills : 13

2.06.1989 F-15C (Israel) - 2 x MiG-29 (Syria)
17.01.1991 F-15C (USAF) - 3 x MiG-29 (Irak)
19.01.1991 F-15C (USAF) - 2 x MiG-29 (Irak)
24.04.1999 F-15C (USAF) - 2 x MiG-29 (Serbia)
26.04.1999 F-15C (USAF) - 2 x MiG-29 (Serbia)
14.09.2001 F-15C (Israel) - 2 x MiG-29 (Syria)


MiG-29 vs F-15 kills : 0

Originally posted by Spyz
I think it's a 6 one half dozen the other type of argument. The aim-54 is a great missle, but was really built for attacking slow or at least relatively slow moving bombers. Until the f-22 came out, I'd be more than comfortable in either one.

The AIM-54 destroyed in combat all kinds of targets, including fighters and strike aircraft. F-14 has 135 kills, of wich 61 were achieved with AIM-54 missile, that is 45% of the total.

AIM-54 kills:

unidentified fighter - 4
MiG-21- 4
MiG-23 - 12
MiG-25 - 11
Mirage F1 - 12
Su-22 - 7
MiG-27 - 2
Tu-22 - 5
Xian H-6D - 1
Super Etendard - 1
SA321 Gazelle - 1
C-601 missile - 1