F-14, F-15 and F-18 what they have in common

[Lostfleet]

Since Russia began to fly the Bears and Backfires around the carriers maybe they will put F-14s back on the carriers?

Yes some wishfull thinking ( I would be very very happy though if it happened)

On the other hand do you think Superhornet is going to be sufficient for fleet defense against massive cruise missile attacks ( I think it was F-14/AIM54s priority mission)

 

[AegisFC]

Since Russia began to fly the Bears and Backfires around the carriers maybe they will put F-14s back on the carriers?

Yes some wishfull thinking ( I would be very very happy though if it happened)

On the other hand do you think Superhornet is going to be sufficient for fleet defense against massive cruise missile attacks ( I think it was F-14/AIM54s priority mission)

The Super Hornets are not going to be used for fleet defense against cruise missiles, the CG's and DDG's will be.

 

[Salty Dog]

Since Russia began to fly the Bears and Backfires around the carriers maybe they will put F-14s back on the carriers?

Yes some wishfull thinking ( I would be very very happy though if it happened)

On the other hand do you think Superhornet is going to be sufficient for fleet defense against massive cruise missile attacks ( I think it was F-14/AIM54s priority mission)

Although the AIM-54 Phoenix was capable of engaging long range AShM's, the main purpose of the F-14 was to shoot down missile launching aircraft. Shipboard SAM systems would take care of the incoming missiles.

The current AIM-120C AMRAAM does not have the same long range as the Phoenix however the AMRAAM has data link and HOJ capabilities increasing it's Pk. Newer versions of the AMRAAM should have the same range as the Phoenix.

The surface fleet's AAW capability has vastly improved since the F-14 era as all area defense AAW ships are Aegis system equiped.

So yes, while the Tomcat/Phoenix are missed, the Superhornet/AMRAAM are fulfilling the fleet air defense role.

 

[Lostfleet]

I have a question about Phoenix, long time ago at a magazine article ( Air International cant remember the edition number) it stated that F-14 could never take-off with 6 Phoenix because it could not land due to weight issues. Moreover, it told that Phoenix never hit its target in test firings.

I can beleive the first statement, but Phoenix never hitting its test target, do you guys know anything about this?

 

[Scorpion82]

I have a question about Phoenix, long time ago at a magazine article ( Air International cant remember the edition number) it stated that F-14 could never take-off with 6 Phoenix because it could not land due to weight issues. Moreover, it told that Phoenix never hit its target in test firings.

I can beleive the first statement, but Phoenix never hitting its test target, do you guys know anything about this?

Well the Phoenix limit was owed to max. landing weight restrictions. Of course the F-14 could have started with 6 AIM-54 but it had to shoot or either drop them before landing.
AFAIK the F-14 performed a multiple target engagment during its early tests and killed 5 out of 6 targets, so this statement is not true at all.

 

[swerve]

I have a question about Phoenix, long time ago at a magazine article ( Air International cant remember the edition number) it stated that F-14 could never take-off with 6 Phoenix because it could not land due to weight issues. ...

If an F-14 had ever taken off to protect a USN carrier battle group against Backfires, in a war between the USA & the USSR, it would have carried as many AIM-54s as possible, without regard to bring-back limits. Such limits apply in peacetime, to avoid having to jettison very expensive weapons before landing.

 

[Lostfleet]

Well the Phoenix limit was owed to max. landing weight restrictions. Of course the F-14 could have started with 6 AIM-54 but it had to shoot or either drop them before landing.
AFAIK the F-14 performed a multiple target engagment during its early tests and killed 5 out of 6 targets, so this statement is not true at all.

Good otherwise I would be very dissapointed about Phoenix ( obviously the people who would use it as well)

 

[TomcatAF]

Don't even compare.

First thing is, you shouldn't even compare these three aircraft because they were developed in different roles, even though other roles were odopted later in their career. The F-14 and 15 were originally designed as air superiority fighters, as the F-4 phantom's replacements. The F-4 was adopted by USN, USAF and USMC. Why they had to replace it with two air craft, I don't think anyone knows. but the needs of the aviation part of the U.S. Military has changed. Now there seems to be more ground attack aircraft in actual active combat duty, but aviation doesn't seem to play very much of a role in the war we are currently in. I'm not in the military, so I don't know as much as you guys do, but my whole reason for joining this forum was to say how retarded I think the decision was to decommision the F-14 Tomcat. I think it could have been modified and varients could have been added to make it worth its huge operating cost. But I have to handed to the F-18, its one hell of a replacement. (but the F-14 LOOKS waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy sexier!!)

 

[Todjaeger]

First thing is, you shouldn't even compare these three aircraft because they were developed in different roles, even though other roles were odopted later in their career. The F-14 and 15 were originally designed as air superiority fighters, as the F-4 phantom's replacements. The F-4 was adopted by USN, USAF and USMC. Why they had to replace it with two air craft, I don't think anyone knows. but the needs of the aviation part of the U.S. Military has changed. Now there seems to be more ground attack aircraft in actual active combat duty, but aviation doesn't seem to play very much of a role in the war we are currently in. I'm not in the military, so I don't know as much as you guys do, but my whole reason for joining this forum was to say how retarded I think the decision was to decommision the F-14 Tomcat. I think it could have been modified and varients could have been added to make it worth its huge operating cost. But I have to handed to the F-18, its one hell of a replacement. (but the F-14 LOOKS waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy sexier!!)

Firstly, welcome to the forum.

Secondly, with regards to different aircraft replacing the F-4, depending on service branch, one must remember that the mission roles and operating environments will be different between the services. A great example of this would be the requirement that USN and USMC (AFAIK) aircraft be able to takeoff and land upon an aircraft carrier. As a rule, this means an arrestor hook, reinforced frame and landing gear to withstand the landing (aka controlled crash). Also the airfoil design would need to be able to generate sufficient lift to take off from the carrier deck. Those are considerations which are not found in Air Force aircraft, and given the increased maintenance and production causes can assist in causing the services to look at different designs.

The above and similar considerations, and most especially mission role, dictate what sort of aircraft the services will look for. A shining example of the differences can be seen by looking at the various planned models for the F-35 Lightning II JSF, with the -A, -B and -C for the Air Force, Marines and Navy respectively.

As for the decision to retire the F-14 Tomcat being a "retarded" one... I have to disagree. The aircraft certainly could have been updated and overhauled to improve performance. What is less certain (okay, pretty unlikely in fact) is that any such modification program could be carried out in a timely and cost efficient manner. As I understand it, the significant portions of the F-14 avionics were not compatible with recent and upcoming weapons developments. So in order to use weapons in inventory like the AMRAAM, a new avionics suite would need to be designed, built, tested, installed, tested again, etc. Having spoked to people who have done such work for the Air Force, it is not a quick process and likely would have taken several years from program initiation before entering IOC (initial operating capacity).

In a similar vein, the maintenance and operating costs for the F-14 were significant by the time it was retired. I forget what the figures were exactly, but it was something like 30+ maintenance hours per flight hour. In order to reduce the punishing maintenance schedule, the Tomcats would need to be virtually rebuilt to "like-new" standards, and/or have components which are significant causes of failure redesigned. In essence, making the aircraft into an almost completely new design. Given that a replacement program (the JSF) was underway to do just that, it did not seem sensible IMV to conduct such significant upgrades to the Tomcat. Particularly since if they were started at around the time the decision was made to cancel the Tomcat (AFAIK ~2002) then the "Tomcat II" would likely have just entered service last year if not later, and in just a few years that JSF will be entering service.

-Cheers

 

[superhornet]

The block60 F16C(also known as the F16E) is atleast as good or most probably better than the F18E/F.Other wise considering the previous models I'd say the falcon wins hands down.To know more about the F16E visit the topic "Advanced F16s For Israel" in this forum.

F-14 is a classical fighter, F-15 is a awesome fighter, F-16 is a successful fighter, F-18 is a moderate fighter. commonly, they are great!

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22 and F-35 all have the same job and that is to blow stuff up.

 

[AegisFC]

Lets keep this on topic and keep the silly comments off this board please.

 

[МиГ-23МЛД]

aerodynamically speaking all are a bit similar and a bit different.

F-14 and F-16:The common points are few, one is a single engine Mach 2 fighter with LERXes and the other is a VG wing fighter.
as such the F-16 and F-14 have some degree of fuselage lift, the F-16 in the wing fuselage blending and the F-14 in the fuselage flat beaver tail.

However the aircraft have similarities in the following way

The F-15 and F-14 are almost the same type of fighter, just customized to different needs basicly in the wing planform and engine nacelles.

The F-14 is a VG wing fighter to improve AoA handling and increase lift at landings and take offs, a flat fuselage tail ended in a beaver tail increases lift fuselage; the F-15 has a cropped delta wing with blunt LERXes to allow excellent turn rates due to excess power and low wing loading; the F-14 offers less drag at supersonic speeds therefore has lower thrust to weight ratio.

The F-14 has more wing control devices than the F-15 to increase lift with spoilers acting as ailerons, and leading edge flaps (slats) to increase lift and reduce vortex wing separation, however the F-16 and F-18 have slats too


Contrary to the F-16 and F-18; the F-15 and F-14 have inlet horizontal ramps with highly racked walls for higher mach numbers and speeds that generate multishock waves to reduce the flow speed.

All these aircraft have a boundary layer gap between the inlets and the fuselage

The F-16 and F-18: are basicly optimized for lower speeds and higher agility therefore have round inlets with fixed ramps but both have LERXes to improve AoA handling. the F-16 uses its forebody to slow down the air flow to the engine and reduce the absolute AoA for the engine, the F-18 uses the wing`s LERX to do the same

The F-16 uses a single vertical dorsal fin but has twin ventral fins like the F-14 to improve lateral stability, the F-15 and F-18 do not use ventral fins but their twin dorsal and vertical fins are enough to ensure lateral stability.


The F-16 and F-18 use their wingtips hardpoints as antiflutter weights; the F-15 in the other hand has cropped and racked wing tips and an extended trailing edge to reduce buffeting and flutter.

The F-14 uses wing vanes to improve longitudinal stability, the F-16 uses relaxed stability.
The F-14 highly sweep angle reduces flutter and buffeting

Since the F-14 is the less agile of all them, it has the longest range BVR weaponry and radar, the F-16 is the most agile and initially had only limited radar and weaponry all have good visibility from their cockpits

 

[AircraftAwesome]

Help me out

I am a novice. Correct me if I am wrong. I would like to know. F-16 is easy for me to identify. Now, F-14 (Variable wing and larger? than the F-15)
F-15 ( Two rudder fins that are vertical, and slightly shorter wings?)
F-18 (Rudder fins are angled and aircraft is smaller overall?)
I DO NOT claim to be right. I am asking so I can learn.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Bonza]

I am a novice. Correct me if I am wrong. I would like to know. F-16 is easy for me to identify. Now, F-14 (Variable wing and larger? than the F-15)
F-15 ( Two rudder fins that are vertical, and slightly shorter wings?)
F-18 (Rudder fins are angled and aircraft is smaller overall?)
I DO NOT claim to be right. I am asking so I can learn.
Thanks in advance.

That's pretty much correct - just do a google image search and you'll quickly pick out the differences.

There's also differences in appearance between early F/A-18 models and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which is larger than the old Hornet, has larger and more rounded leading edge extensions, squared off intakes rather than rounded ones, and slight differences in the wing's leading edge and horizontal stabilisers (this is off the top of my head, might have gotten some terminology wrong).

edit: Thought I'd add a link to a picture for clarification, you'll see what I mean very quickly

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-18_to_Super_Hornet_Comparison_lg.gif

 

[Cailet]

I am a novice. Correct me if I am wrong. I would like to know. F-16 is easy for me to identify. Now, F-14 (Variable wing and larger? than the F-15)
F-15 ( Two rudder fins that are vertical, and slightly shorter wings?)
F-18 (Rudder fins are angled and aircraft is smaller overall?)
I DO NOT claim to be right. I am asking so I can learn.
Thanks in advance.

You're pretty much right on the money. There's more details than that of course but you're basically right. These are the notes on those aircraft I made for an aircraft recognition course a while back if they're helpful.

F-14 has square, swept intakes, long VG wing and relatively small twin vertical tail with the fins atop the engine ducts. It's also got a much older cockpit style with two seats.
F-15 has square swept intakes, shorter triangular wing and taller tails mounted outside the engine ducts with a more obvious 'bubble' canopy.
F-18 C/D has smaller rounded intakes, stubby square wings with little sweep and an angled tail.
F-18 E/F (Super Hornet) is a larger F-18 with squared intakes.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

As far as ID'ing goes, knowing where you are and what's going on in your area can also be fairly helpful in ID'ing planes.

For example, I used to live near MCAS Miramar (formerly NAS Miramar) back in the early 2000s. If any fast movers flew overhead, odds are they were F/A-18s, since that what the Navy and the Corps had based there. The same also applies to other forms of aircraft, be they combat or non-combat.

 

[Corsair96]

In a nutshell

F-15- Kill the bad guys quickly and easily
(Not the case for the F-15E)

F-14- Kill the bad guys before they shoot missiles at your ships or your attack aircraft.

F-18- thee swiss army knife of planes, not very good at anything but can do everything adequately



What is the order in which they where designed and produced and what are the costs?
Was the F-15 ever tested for Carrier runs like the Mig 29k or the SU-33?

 

[jack412]

Corsair96, Its been reported by the USN that the fa-18 slaps the f-14 silly in capability
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf

gee I wish I knew all that was under the skin of a fa-18sh, some how I get the feeling its still being under-rated
as with most planes, there is more to it than looking at the published specs

norinco89 said
"The super hornet is still more the most dominent air craft in the skys other than raptors and maybe eurofighter"

it will be interesting to see what the EF develops into, right now, I'm leaning to the fa-18efg

Pursuit Curve said
"There is no doubt as to the AOA capabilities of the hornet, though 80 degrees while at supersonic speed is a bit of a stretch!"

I think this was with early gen 18ab software and it wouldnt be sustained AOA and as you said, probably not at SS
this is the upgraded flight control for the ABCD that was tested to roll at 55 deg AOA, it doesnt give max or sustained AOA in level flight
I think the only thing that touches the h/sh in sustained AOA is the f-22/35

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/han...A-4C95-B80B-D4B19D12C222/0/sohl_mit_brief.pdf

 

[Haavarla]

Corsair96, Its been reported by the USN that the fa-18 slaps the f-14 silly in capability
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf

gee I wish I knew all that was under the skin of a fa-18sh, some how I get the feeling its still being under-rated
as with most planes, there is more to it than looking at the published specs

norinco89 said
"The super hornet is still more the most dominent air craft in the skys other than raptors and maybe eurofighter"

it will be interesting to see what the EF develops into, right now, I'm leaning to the fa-18efg

Pursuit Curve said
"There is no doubt as to the AOA capabilities of the hornet, though 80 degrees while at supersonic speed is a bit of a stretch!"

I think this was with early gen 18ab software and it wouldnt be sustained AOA and as you said, probably not at SS
this is the upgraded flight control for the ABCD that was tested to roll at 55 deg AOA, it doesnt give max or sustained AOA in level flight
I think the only thing that touches the h/sh in sustained AOA is the f-22/35

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/han...A-4C95-B80B-D4B19D12C222/0/sohl_mit_brief.pdf

Hmm.. I do not agree.
For the sake of this thread, lets keep all other aircraft beside the F-16,F-15, F14, F-18SH out.
The F-18SH have different AoA capability vs the F-15C.
The F-15C has a higher speed regime vs the SH, which can be used to its advantage.
If the F-15C pilot use his energy reserve from higher speed to his advantage, the F-15C can overcome the SH in a BFM exercise.
While having an impressive AoA rate, the SH tends to bleed an exceses of energy while turning & burning.
This mostly due to the different wing design between F-15C and SH....