How did the F-14 compare to the F-15?
If it had continued being upgraded like the F-15, would it still be a contender against the modern Eagle?
Hangaaaaar Queeeeeeen
F-14 is Kawaiii....
>>27789926
>What is every American fighter jet ever?
>>27789939
Tomcat was one even by American standards
I think the radar was a bit better and it could turn fight better. Also it was easier to see especially with its wings unswept.
>>27789918
Dick Cheney killed the Tomcat for no good reason.
The F-15 was faster and had a much higher readiness rate. The AIM-54 made the Tomcat a better interceptor though. As for their radars I'm not sure which was better, but they were both very good.
>>27790118
The AWG-9 was better.
>>27789918
>Swing-Wing
>Surviving past the 70's
Its amazing it lasted as long as it did.
>>27789918
Turkey had the Phoenix and the radar to support it, that was the main reason for its existence. It also had IRST or TV camera (D model had both). Also, with the TARPS pod F-14 was a decent recon platform, not to mention that it was eventually used as a multirole unlike the F-15C. The only reasons why AMRAAM was not integrated on the 'Cat were money and Darth Cheney's decision to kill the program (HARM integration was also ignored for same reasons).
In a furball, they were pretty evenly matched. F-14 had better instant G at all speeds and better sustained G at slow speeds and when supersonic - F-15 had slightly better sustained G in the transonic range. F-14 had worse thrust-weight ratio especially in the A model, but B&D were close to Eagle and had better acceleration. The fuselage lift compensated quite a bit though as long as the F-14 didn't go straight vertical.
Of course, the absolutely disgusting Superbug is vastly inferior to both in every regard except for a smaller RCS, which is negated by its literally retarded weapon pylons
>>27790622
Yay, F-14 thread, a good excuse to post this: http://theaviationist.com/2015/10/31/impressive-previously-unreleased-footage-shows-how-two-f-14-tomcats-shot-down-two-gaddafis-mig-23s/
First thing's first: The F-14 and F-15 are the quintessential beautiful fighter designs of the past 50 years.
>>27789918
In terms of a dogfight, they were actually fairly comparable. F-15 had an edge in turning at higher speeds but the F-14, like all carrier aircraft, had superior alpha. The times that the USAF and USN did exercises between the two, they'd regularly trade wins.
>>27789995
Nah, brah as much as I love the Tomcat, I have to disagree. It was a serious hangar queen. Even when the Harrier was in service, the Tomcat was THE Hangar Queen. The problem was that it's primary duty, interception of heavy Soviet bomber regiments attacking CSGs evaporated over night, which left it being just a Bombcat, which the Hornet did better and cheaper.
>>27790679
Is that the one where the RIO tells the pilot something like "Fucking shoot him!" pilot responds "I don't have a lock!" and then the sidewinder loudly proclaims that it has tone? That's my favorite one.
>>27790716
Yeah, they declassified the gun cam footage. There's not much, but you can see the kill
>>27789918
The only group to ever get any action out of the F-14 was the Iranians. They didn't have many AIM-54s, but apparently it was a very effective weapon. They barely lost any Tomcats during the war, and most were due to accidents rather than enemy action. The Tomcat finally got a chance to slaughter MiGs like it was supposed to.
>>27789918
The Tomcat has the AIM-54. Yo, Eagle, I love you dog, but you're history if a Phoenix comes your way.
Fun fact: all 3 times the AIM-54 was fired in combat, it failed it hit its target.
As I understand it the AIM-54 was designed to hit slowly maneuvering heavy bombers, not agile fighters.
>>27790883
>Fun fact: all 3 times the AIM-54 was fired in combat, it failed it hit its target.
At least one of those times was because the pilot fired beyond the missile's maximum range. That's not the missile's fault.
The Navy wouldn't have adopted it if it didn't perform adequately during testing. And they learned from Vietnam: they tested with fighter-sized targets.
>>27790898
Just saying, it isn't a false statement to say "The AIM-54 has been fired in combat and it has a 0% hit rate"
>>27790898
>At least one of those times was because the pilot fired beyond the missile's maximum range.
>Fired at a target more than 190km away
really
>>27790905
The Iranians were very successful with their stockpile of AIM-54s.
>>27790947
Yep.
It's kind of disingenuous to talk about only the United States use of the AIM-54 when the never even fought a war with it. Iranian Tomcats were pretty dominant in the Iran-Iraq war.
>>27790883
Those missiles were also as old as the pilot.
>>27789918
>How did the F-14 compare to the F-15?
The tomcat was faster, had greater range, better radar and longer range weapons. It was also rather agile.
>If it had continued being upgraded like the F-15, would it still be a contender against the modern Eagle?
Yes, in fact the last few missions flew by tomcats were ground attack and there were development plans to create ground attack versions. These were killed off when the tomcat was removed from service.
>>27789918
F-14 was a better interceptor, F-15 a better air superiority fight. F-15 could outturn the F-14 but the Tomcat had a better radar. All in all they were both great it's just a question of what the mission was as to which was better.
The F-14 was a hangar queen though, not even a meme hangar queen, like an actual one.
>>27790622
>superbug has better T/W, G load, wing loading, AOA, and payload
Oh boy the memesters are getting uppity again.
>>27793473
Why is there so much Rhino hate?
It's good at Recon, A/A, A/G, and EW. It's a cheap, reliable platform, and with what they're teaching at NSWC, pilots/WSOs can push the aircraft, especially F/A18F's, harder than they ever anticipated. I don't have the stats but recent VFA guys on a WESTPAC had simulated wargames with Su-27's and MiG29's and had a preddy good kill ratio.
>>27793619
Viper fags hate it for being better at BVR.
Tomcat fags hate it for being a better turner, which is especially harsh because of the Topgun mythos.
Lightning fags hate it for being cheaper in every way with only 700ish units planned.
>>27790789
The Phoenix never hit anything
>>27793909
...Except the F-35 isn't replacing the Super Bug, you twat.
>>27793930
Then why did the Navy adopt it?
>>27791739
>there were development plans to create ground attack versions.
What is F-14D?
Why were 55 made?
>>27794112
Never said the F-35 was replacing the Rhino you butt blasted ninny boy.
>>27794276
>Lightning fags hate it for being cheaper in every way with only 700ish units planned.
>Never said the F-35 was replacing the Rhino you butt blasted ninny boy.
>>27794313
>he repeated the sentence where I didn't say the F-35 is replacing the Rhino
Love it.
>>27794406
>Stated it as if the F-35 was replacing Rhino and not just Legacy Bug
>Butthurt
>>27790736
This is incorrect. US and Libya had enough engagments
>>27789926
What would be some post 1950 jet planes that would be considered the opposite of hangar queens?
I read a lot about planes that require notorious amounts of maintenance (Harriers, Tomcats, etc) but not a whole lot on those that aren't.
>>27795342
You literally fail at reading comprehension, no where in my post was there mention of any plane replacing another. Do you think the 700 units planned part refers to the F-35? They are making over 3000 of those things.
Something I've been curious about. Why have American aviation companies never explored the canard foreplane option? It's cropped up in a lot of European designs that have done well, but I don't think a single similar layout ever entered U.S. service.
>>27795505
This almost seems to be a cultural thing has it hasn't seem to have been considered even once. The best reason I can think of is that US planes have never sacrifice drag for high angle of attack. This also comes up in relying on chines instead of lifting bodies, having narrow fuselage with high roll rates, and to some extent the F-22 having synchronized thrust vectoring instead of moving independently. US planes are measured by their ability to maintain speed and compete in energy tactics rather than making a turn properly.
>>27795430
>I read a lot about planes that require notorious amounts of maintenance (Harriers, Tomcats, etc) but not a whole lot on those that aren't.
Ha ha ha that's because they don't exist. All fighters are high-maintenance bitches. Some are just worse than others.
>>27795505
It's actually been explored a lot, I just don't think it's ever been adopted (that I can recall), probably due to perceived pros/cons or something.
I mean, the F-15 ACTIVE is one of the more famous experimental planes NASA's done, and it has/had canards, did it slip your mind?
There were a bunch of others as well, their names just escape me... (I even seem to recall an real funky looking prop plane experiment with canards towards the end of WWII...)
It has become popular to hate on the tomcat, because it itself is so popular. Added to that is the time old USAF vs USN rivalry. The F-15 was the better dogfighter on paper than the F-14A, and even B model, but they were really extremely close in all realms of performance. If you dont believe me, just look at the results of the ACE/AIMVAL tests of the 70s. I am not a fighter pilot, just an engineering school drop out, but I have a pretty informed opinion on the subject, and I will share it with you. Take it with all the salt you will.
First of all the tomcat had an equal or slightly better radar than the eagle, but both were extremely similar in performance, given the similar radome size. But the RIO in the back operating the F-14's made a world of difference. Early radar's were not user friendly, especially while pulling g at mach 2. Both radar's had amazing range, something like 100-300 miles in detection range for fighter sized targets. The F-14's AWG-9 had a track while scan mode (TWS), which allowed it to track up to 24 targets, and lock 6 of those to shoot with the AIM-54 phoenix. The AIM-7 sparrow still had to be used in STT mode however.
TWS mode meant that you did not have to direct ALL of you radar's energy at a single target to fire on them, which meant that you could still see all the other bad guys while you shot at others. This made for outstanding situational awareness. Furthermore, when locking an enemy up in TWS mode, an enemy will not know that you are about to or have already fired on him, unlike in STT. The enemy will not get a missile launch warning, he will only know that an F-14 is there. Unless you see the missile's launch smoke, (unlikely at 20-100 miles), the first time you KNOW a missile is inbound is when the missile goes active with its on-board radar, which happened at roughly 5-10 miles. The phoenix had a top speed of over mach 4, and in one of its launch modes ( several attack profiles where available to the RIO) , it would climb to over 80,000ft, where it would then nose over in the extremely thin air, and begin descending to the target. This is what gave it its insane range. The missiles had a thermal battery to allow the missile to travel for so long without dying. This method allowed it to trade altitude for speed, and apparently it was very good at this. Ive heard that the missile would still be traveling over mach 2, even at super long range ( think 50-100 miles).
>>27796011
shit, the US explored Delta first, in post ww2 as a production fighter in the form of the cutlass and skyray. Explored endlessly with canards even on an F-4 Phantom.
The conclusion was the added weight and complexity was not worth it when you have a missile that is more agile inside of the kill envelope. It was thinking 30 years in the future, but so far, so good. Aim-9x is bretty good.
>>27796432
>>27796406
With the phoenix going pitbull at such close range, and traveling between 1400-3000mph at that point, an enemy would have a VERY short amount of time in which to react. We are talking maybe 10 to 30 seconds. Dodge this, Ivan.
On the subject of dodging, many people parrot the incorrect belief that the phoenix could not engage fighter sized targets. In fact the missile was tested many times against small high speed drones, pulling high g. IIRC the AIM-54 was rated to be able to hit targets pulling 7.5 to 8.5 g , and did so in tests. The missile itself could pull something like 15-20 g.
>>27796561
Now, you may say:
>well the MiG-29/ SU-27 can pull over 9 g !
Yes, it can. 9 g instantaneous. But they ( like MANY other fighters, Viper and eagle included) can only sustain 9 g at relatively low altitude, where the thicker atmosphere both gives their engines more power and wings more to "bite" into. For example, in a viper, it can only sustain 9 g at under ~ 15-20k feet, and thats in a clean configuration. Add external stores and forget about it. At high altitude, like above 30k ft, there are not may aircraft that can sustain 9 g. I believe the F-22 is one of them, because in the words of the many fighter pilots I know, its a goddamn space alien fighter from hell.
A MiG or SU will not know how long it will take for the missile to arrive. If he can guess when, and suddenly pull 9+ g right before impact, he could defeat the AIM-54. But since thats basically impossible with it raining down on you from 80k ft doing mach 4, your only option is to try to outrun it. Once again, good luck Ivan. Sure, go ahead and try and put the tomcat on the beam, you may break the radar lock. But the AIM-54, even the old ones, had inertial guidance , and would go to where it thought the target was going in the absence of AWG-9 guidance. The AIM-54C models had upgraded electronic counter- countermeasures, and IIRC, could home in on jam like the modern slammer.
>>27794142
Good enough to hit tu-95s, not maneuverable enough to hit fighters.
>>27796782
But alright, perhaps fulcrums and flankers were just too much for the phoenix. But the USSR and all it's sanctioned states did not field many of these in the 70s and 80s. The tomcat's fighter sized enemy's were far more likely to be MiG-21s, 23's, etc. All of which were far less agile, and with far worse avionics, crappy RWR, and just generally horrible tools for maintaining situational awareness. In short: they were lunch meat for the tomcat in BVR.
But even still, if you insist that the AIM-54 was just utter garbage ( it wasn't), then keep in mind it was actually the first aircraft to fire the AIM-120, resultant from the ACE/AIMVAL tests it and the eagle took part it. The F-14 never got the AMRAAM operationally because the tomcat program was deemed unnecessary in the post cold war world, and money was very tight. The tomcat community was force to choose between the amraam or the bombcat laser guided bomb packages. Lantern or sniper pods from lockheed, iirc.
>>27796870
The Tomcat's primary job was fleet defense. There is no way they gave it a missile that was unable to hit fighters.
The real "flaw" of the AIM-54 is this: It's too big. It's payload is overkill against most aerial targets. It was so heavy that if the Tomcat was carrying more than one, it would have to drop most of them before it could land safely. It had nothing to do with being unable to kill fighters. It was just overkill.
>>27796930
Of course it was able to engage fighters, its just not the optimal weapon for it.
Partly due to the reasons you stated.
But against a formation of bombers?
Being able to engage outside of the range of escort fighters and with short warning before the missile guided on target it would fit the fleet defense role perfectly.
But then things changed and the Phoenix was not needed any more, or the Tomcat for that matter.
Also worth considering is how old the Phoenix is, it was built in the 60s so compared to modern missiles it is ancient.
>>27796870
Not true, read my posts, and then go read about the AIM-54 NOT on the aviationist or airpoweraus. It hit high g mach 1 + targets in tests.
The AIM-54 did not acheive any kills with the USN, but it was fired only 3 times. One of the shots was taken outside of the missile's no escape zone, the point at which an enemy can simple 180 away and outrun it. And the target in that instance was a MiG-25, an aircraft easily capable of mach 2.8-3.2. Furthermore, the tomcat did its job in that instance, denying the enemy from occupying the no fly zone. Sure, no splash one, but mission accomplished none the less. If the tomcat would have fired within parameters, the foxbat simple could not avoid it, nor outrun it.
>>27796930
>The real "flaw" of the AIM-54 is this: It's too big. It's payload is overkill against most aerial targets. It was so heavy that if the Tomcat was carrying more than one, it would have to drop most of them before it could land safely. It had nothing to do with being unable to kill fighters. It was just overkill.
The tomcat could land with most, if not all of its AIM-54s. They only weigh ~1000lbs x 6, and the tomcat and trap with more than that in bringback, even in peace time. In war time it was allowed to trap with even more. But it simply would not be able to land with as much fuel, which, on a carrier in the north Atlantic, you need in case you bolter and need to try again. So it was not done because of that, and because 4 AIM-54 + 2 AIM-7 + 2 AIM-9 is pretty much the perfect interceptor loadout.
The warhead weighed something like 150lbs. Thats something close to half the actual amount of explosives in a mk-82. Its aerial frag range was very, very large. No need to hit, just get close.
>>27797088
>Also worth considering is how old the Phoenix is, it was built in the 60s so compared to modern missiles it is ancient.
This, is the reason the other USN phoenix shots failed to hit, because by the time of the shots, some of these missiles were 10 to 20 years old. One thing I will NOT defend the tomcat program for, was being expensive, and money had to be allocated carefully. New AIM-54's were not in the budget. The tomcat was also a hanger queen yes, but also, keep in mind many of the airframes were 20 to 30 years old. Look at the fucking mission readiness of the A and C model hornets when they were 20-30 years old. Not so great either. Look at the current marine corps hornets for example.
>>27790716
>The problem was that it's primary duty, interception of heavy Soviet bomber regiments attacking CSGs evaporated over night, which left it being just a Bombcat, which the Hornet did better and cheaper.
Thats what I was told by old tomcat mechanics when I fixed f-18s in the navy.
>>27790758
question:
who actually marshals these planes? whoever is around at the time? maintainer? crew chief?
>>27797172
>The problem was that it's primary duty, interception of heavy Soviet bomber regiments attacking CSGs evaporated over night, which left it being just a Bombcat, which the Hornet did better and cheaper.
>Thats what I was told by old tomcat mechanics when I fixed f-18s in the navy.
This is very true, the hornet was much more advanced, basically like a naval F-16. But the tomcat apparently kicked total ass dropping laser guided bombs, since it could carry four 1k lb LGBs, and because it was very fast, and had very long range.
Hornets may have done it cheaper, and in ways better, but they needed to refuel constantly, carried less ordinance, and carried it much, much slower. A hornet with full stores it a total pig, a tomcat with 4 thousand pounders in between the engines is barely slower at all, as it was designed to carry AIM-54s the same way.
But, ultimately, the pentagon and Darth Cheny were proven right. They figured with the USSR in down, there would likely be no "real" ( like blackjack's carrying cruise missiles) threats in the near future , and the ATF and NATF ( F-22 and naval F-22N ) programs would be ready for the future threats.
Well what do you know, they were right, there STILL isnt a credible threat to US carriers ( stfu chicoms with your carrier killer ballistic missiles lol ).
The tomcats were getting old, and getting even more expensive to keep going, and with the hornet being pushed as the answer, they had no future. A good amount of it was politics. If you'll do some research, you may notice that Dick Cheny has a history with Northrop, and a hatred of grumman. When he killed the F-14 and E/A-6, he set them up to get bought out.
>>27797280
Well, I needed to go to bed an hour ago, so I cant type more now, other than to leave you with a few unorganized thoughts on the tomcat.
The F-14 had an INSANE nose pointing ability. It could fly controllably at over 75-85 AoA. The tomcat had less wing area than the eagle and more weight, but the tomcat's spaced twin engine body ( like the flanker and fulcrum series) made it a extremely effective lifting body. With the wings back, the tomcat was extremely fast. When the tomcat was flown in testing it got up to mach 2.43, and was still accelerating at that point. The mach 2.34 figure is just the USN's officaial placard limit on the aircraft, not what it can do. Similarly, the tomcat was built by grumman to be able to operationally pull 9g, despite the navy's program requirements of at least 6.5 g .
The navy set the limit at 8g to preserve the life of the aircraft, then later lowered it to 7.5, and finally 6.5 ( yuck ) g. Even with the 6.5 g limit, pilots flew the jet to 7 g in training, since apparently there was no penalty to them to exceed the limit by only 0.5 g.
In combat it was a different story. They pulled what they needed to, and the aircraft could deliver. In a mission during the first gulf war, a pilot ( I belive it was Dale Snodgrass iirc ) had to pull something like 11g to dodge an Iraqi SA-2. Despite being heavy and under-engined, the jet could flat boogie in ACM, dont let prissy eagle drivers tell you different. The F-14 was slow to roll though, being big, wide and heavy. On paper, an F-15 should beat it, being the better energy, or rate fighter. But IRL, the tomcat could mix it up with eagles, thanks to their nose pointing prowess and tons of lift.
It is an apt comparison to the F-16 vs F-18 fight. Viper SHOULD win every time ( having the best sustained turn rate in the US military short of the F-22), but in practice, they dont.
>>27797485
Also, I'm just guessing here but lift plays a much bigger part in a turn fight then roll or yaw, right? You spend half a second rolling 90 degrees then pitch/lift as hard as you can to move your nose, I'd imagine.
>>27797612
Last post, for cereal this time, but to change direction, you roll to put your lift vector where you want to go , and then pull "up" to go there. The tomcat was slow to roll, so slow to change direction.
Google it or download some flight sims. Try DCS, lomac, falcon 4.0, or falcon BMS 4.33
>>27797485
>75-85 AOA
Can you prove this?
we can stop arguing now
F-14 was just a navalized F-15 that looked way sicker, and naval aviators > everyone else
>>27799889
>F-14 was just a navalized F-15
The F-14 flew first
>>27799925
>F-14
>First flight: 21 December 1970
>F-15
>First flight: 27 July 1972
It's not correct to say the F-14 is a navalized F-15.
If anything, you might say the F-15 is an Air-Force-ilized F-14, but that's still wrong as fuck.
>>27799943
or you could stop being autistic and realize that I was simply saying they're rather similar in performance
>>27799950
Let us know when the F-15 gets Phoenix missiles and swing-wings.
>>27800489
sure thing, 'tismo.
>>27797485
>It could fly controllably at over 75-85 AoA.
Dong expanded
If those advanced Tomcats ever flew, I wonder how they'd be? Or better yet, imagine todays tech stuffed into one...
>>27802487
Well from what I heard they were going to replace the radar with aesa, so it'd be the biggest fighter aesa radar in the US arsenal, digitised the cockpit, replace the hydraulic controls with electric controls for the wing to save on weight and maintenance while improving performance, probably add rcs reduction measures, new engines, amraam capability, Phoenix missile replacement, etc. There was a good article on all the planned upgrades but I'm too lazy to look for it right now
>>27802553
To reduce the RCS to something decent you would have to redesign the airframe, its not suited for it.
Very good reasons for why the F-14 never got that kind of treatment, and its the same reason the F-15SE isn't doing so well.
>>27802011
>get called out on saying something stupid
>everyone but me has au..au...autism
I don't love this aspect of 4chan
>>27790883
>Fun fact: all 3 times the AIM-54 was fired in combat, it failed it hit its target.
Iran made good use of it, they shot down a lot of Iraqi planes with the AIM-54
>>27802690
>he still can't see the point
>>27802553
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142
This the article you were talking about?
>>27789918
How did the plane that flamed out its engines by firing at certain altitudes (secretary of defense named it the worst airframe/engine pairing of all time) compare to one of the best air superiority fighters ever?
The F-14 was a terrible aircraft that got the memed 80's style by top gun and because it "super cool wings that go in and out." Which were also a maintenance nightmare.
>>27789939
>implying US airframes don't get the most hours out of every air force
>>27799889
From a guy I know who flew as a weapons school instructor for air force first and navy second, air force is better. The whole "we can land on aircraft carriers so we're better at everything" is getting old. Any fighter pilot could do that if they were taught how. The difference in stick and rudder skills between heavy pilots and fighter pilots is generally pretty big.
>>27805855
>weapons school instructor
>air force to navy
I don't believe you. NSAWC instructors are all TOPGUN graduates with 1000+ hours in tactical fighters, which today pretty much just means Rhinos. It's really, really hard to switch branches, and virtually impossible to teach doctrine in the service you recently trasnferred to. USAF modeled their tactical fighter school after NSAWC, not the other way around.
What I can tell you is that the USAF has more planes than the USN, and specializes training FAR more.
Every single TACAIR pilot in the USN has hours in the T-6 at Pensacola and the T-45 at Meridian, and every single squadron draws their pilots from the common FRS, either VFA-122 or 106. Those guys go on to fly F/A18A+/B/C/D and F/A-18E/F, and will eventually fly F35C's.
USAF is way more specialized. Studs can start at Columbus, Laughlin, or Vance for one track, or at Sheppard for joint/NATO. From there, they go on to the advanced track at the same base (either fast-movers or heavies). The cultures at each base is way different, and depending on the year and the cycle from OCS/ROTC/USAFA grads, varying standards. Then, for the fast-movers, you move again to either Randolph or Sheppard, and again to the one base that trains for your airframe, i.e. F35's at Eglin.
There is only one degree for Wings of Gold, there are three for wings of lead.
>the difference in stick and rudder skills between heavies and fighters is pretty big
No shit Sherlock.
>>27790679
i don't understand why the US guy shot them
didn't the USA and Russia see each other flying around all the time, the guy starts panicking while the Libyans are 20+ miles away, i get that he was afraid but isn't part of being a badass fighter pilot taking some risk? why assume they were doing anything but buzzing them?
it says at the time the US Carrier was doing a "Freedom of navigation" exercise which means "getting as close to the other country as you can and going IM NOT TOUCHING YOU" so basically the usa was doing the same thing
>>27806119
So how does a Tomcat compare in practice to a Hornet or Super Hornet? I only ever see biased bitching, never comparisons.
>>27806335
Simple answer: they don't.
The F-14 was retired in 2006, its duties as the "Fleet Interceptor" were taken up by the F/A-18E/F which was introduced in 1999.
Remember, the F-14 was designed to be the high-speed interceptor to shoot down Tu-95's and cruise missiles as they approached the carrier strike group.
The F/A-18 was originally adopted to be a bomb truck and replace the A-4 Skyhawk, the A-6 Intruder and the A-7 Corsair II. In the Gulf war and in Kosovo, the "legacy" Hornet showed some dogfighting capability, hence the F/A designation (which has only been applied to this series).
The F-14 was wicked fast, had a great radar and in theory could kill someone with a Phoenix or an AMRAAM before it came down to dogfighting. The F-14 did not turn well, and sometimes got into flat spins since the engines were so far apart. However, that also created a lifting body, and the AoA capability of the F-14 was insane. She could climb and drop like no other aircraft. Thus, F-14 drivers and RIO's were taught to avoid turning wars if they could get the drop on Migs and Sukhois.
The Super Hornet had unique capibilities with the leading edge strakes and the fact that the entire elevator moved, rather than a flap. With the newer, bigger engines on the E/F and improved radar, the Super Hornet could turn almost as well as an F-16, and with a center-line gun and low surface area, proved to be able to dogfight very well-turns, rolls, climbing and diving were all relatively balanced. The smaller nose cone necessitated a smaller radar, so the F/A-18E/F doesn't have over-the-horizon capability like the F-22 or supposedly the F-35 does, instead relying on AIM9X sidewinders for short-range and AIM-120 AMRAAMS under the fuselage for medium range, in addition to the big gun. Keep in mind that the Super Hornet ALSO has to be a bomb truck, so she rarely flies slick. A typical F/A-18F loadout for OEF/OIF would be AIM9X on the rails, one AIM-120 on the conformal hardpoint
>>27806508
>>27806335
2/2
and an ATFLIR targeting pod on the other conformal hardpoint, then a centerline fuel tank and fuel tanks on the inboard hardpoints, and either 2 JDAMS, 4 Paveways, or a combination of rockets, paveways, and mavericks.
The posters talking about the 'Bombcat" are telling the truth. For what it cost per flight hour, and the additional maintenance for the wings and engines, it wasn't worth as much as the Super Hornet, which was an outstanding bomb truck and could dogfight as well as any anticipated resistance, so the Tomcat died (and you can decide amongst yourselves about Cheney but the fact of the matter is that the USN is an all-Hornet force right now)
>>27806150
20mi ain't that far my man.
>flying along border to Libyan airspace
>Floggers approach
>turn away from them
>they turn towards us
>this happens 5 separate times, they still pursue
>they're closing quickly
Yeah they were completely crazy to be panicked
>>27806575
>>27806508
>>27806335
Here's the best picture I could find of a standard Rhino loadout
>>27806575
And in the nearish future, the F-35C is going to have a lot of advantages neither versions of the -18 or the 14 had, as it has quite a bit more range and is the first plane they've had that can load all hardpoints with munitions instead of needing tanks/pods.
>>27806575
With the retirement of the F-111 and the delayed introduction of the F-35A, my country is an entirely Hornet force. As far as planes go, it's probably the right one for the job.
>>27806689
Aussies!
Your Super Hornet videos are awesome, on-par with the ones the Navy makes. Keep up the good work and make use of the glorious Rhino and Growler.
>>27806630
they were over international waters and fired the first shot after moving their carrier as close to their country as possible to see what they would do
>ignoring the photo of a Russian plane 100 feet from us fighters
20miles is so close brah, neva happened befo
>>27806749
Because Russian bomber interceptions are so routine nobody takes them seriously anymore. It's happened for so long that the opposing pilots literally wave to each other when they get close.
>>27806647
Not disagreeing with you, but internally a Rhino has a 2069nm range, plus 990 gal of fuel in drop tanks which allow it to go even further. F35C has a 1200nm range (unless that's combat radius, hard to get good data without either F35 shills or anti-F35 shills and without knowing the F135 engine rate of burn) plus the provision for wing tanks still exists.
>>27806721
Can't wait to see how the Growler does here. Apparently ours are outfitted slightly better for A2A than the USN ones but I'm not clear on the specifics. Something to do with the AIM-9X, I believe.
>>27806781
In terms of combat radius, the F-35 has the edge with around 600 nmi while the Super Hornet has 390 nmi.
>>27806781
The Super Bug has an official combat radius of 500nmi, the -35C 613.
>>27806836
Derp, for some reason I had the F-14's radius in my head there, 500 should be 390.
>>27806749
>Bear interceptions are at all comparable to fighters crossing well within combat range in a contested area
Come on dude, Bear intercepts are a tradition at this point.
>>27806882
>contested area
>you are thousands of miles from home just off their coast
>in international waters but trying to provoke libya in every way possible while saying "IM IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS IM NOT TOUCHING YOU"
>their fighters come to see what the fuck you are doing, they don't shoot at you
>you kill 4 people
>they never fire a shot
it looks like they were trying to bait them so they could have an excuse to start a war to be honest
gulf of tonkin part ii
>>27806827
The F-35 tests were done slick, while the Rhino tests were done with 4 JDAM's, 2 AIM-9X, an ATFLIR targeting pod and a centerline fuel tank. Straight-line endurance for a slick Rhino is somewhere between 1500 and 2000 nm
>>27806969
Well yeah, that's kind of what the advantage the F-35C has over the Super Hornet. It can carry munitions in clean configuration while the Super Hornet can't.
>>27807017
it'd be heavier f a m. I'm not arguing that the F35C isn't going to compliment the Rhino and the Growler really really well, and is an awesome replacement for the Legacy hornet, I'm just saying that there needs to be more data available outside of Pierre Sprey, that one website that shittily compares planes without citations and says the Su-27 is the best, and Wikipedia.
>>27789939
>Thinks the F-16 is a hanger queen
The viper has a lot of serious problems but excessive maintenance requirements isn't one of them.
>>27790716
The F-14 also was politically ugly after the Iranian Revolution, where getting rid of all the spare parts and tooling for it was considered important.
>>27807082
Eh, it'd be cool, but specs being "available" wink a wink and a nudge is pretty standard for high end equipment like that. Enough for the public to compare, but not quite enough to extrapolate tactics.
>>27806957
Probably, but then again the last time Libyans sent aircraft against F-14s they fired first, so I don't blame the F-14 pilots for being on edge.
FAST AIRPLANES
>>27807138
what are F-16's probrems?
>>27807850
Very short range without external tanks and its small size limits its payload and avionics.
to my knowledge (not much beyond wikipedia) so you know, salt. take some. the swinging wings were a maintenance issue and it allegedly required 10 hours maintenance time for every one hour of flight time, so an 8 hour op would require that particular plane to be out of commission for a few days while they inspected it and made sure nothing was stressed to the breaking point. though I suspect this is just speculation, and they probably did this betweem a clustered period of sorties. of course there were always more on the ship and they could probably put it back together nice n quick if they needed say, alert 5 aircraft.
>>27807973
Even with tanks it's got to stay pretty close to a fueler to do anything requiring any endurance.
>>27803904
I don't think so but it covers all the same points
>>27806119
They get more hours in the T-6 because the Navy takes twice as fucking long to graduate student pilots. All the instructors I know here who went to Pensacola for Phase 2 then came here for T-38s said it was a huge kick in the ass going from the Navy style of training (really relaxed, not much pressure) to the Air Force style (12 hour days pretty much every day with either 2 sims, 2 flights, or a flight and a sim every day until your done.)
>>27808017
That would be ten man hours, not 10 hours
RIP, Phoenix missile. We never got to see you in a real confrontation :(
The F-15 is way easier to refuel inflight, in my opinion.
>>27809420
Because 12 hour days burn you out real fast man.
Coming in at 8 and leaving at 4 leaves time for crew rest ;)
Why do you wear scarves and iron your flight suit?
Quick everyone, post your rarest Tomcats!
>>27795505
Europe designs went towards delta wings early on, canards are usually a compromise, something that is needed to make more areodinamically extreme designs viable - or in some cases, meant to help the plane achieve shorter takeoff distances (Su-33).
I guess that after decades of work in delta winged platforms, European designers will try to stick with them as there's more pilots that know how to handle deltas, and more expertise in designing and mantaining deltas. So you'll see canards more often because many delta designs kinda require them.
>>27796432
Why all this discussion about TWS? The F-15 got TWS with the first upgrade programs.
>>27790789
That is some fucking sweet nose art
>>27809446
Iran-Iraq was pretty srs, with some decently modern equipment on both sides and like a million dead.
Just a pity there's hardly any good documentaries / photos.
>>27799889
>F-14 was just a navalized F-15
How fucking retarded can you be.
The F-14 has its roots in the F-111, NOTHING to do with the F-15.
Ok anons, answer this: Would you rather be a Eagle or Tomcat pilot?
>Tomcat pilot: 6-8 month deployments on a stinky, noisy, and dank carrier with shit food, a shared room, no alcohol and virtually no chance of pussy unless you break the rules and fuck an enlisted female sea-pig. Also, those night landings...nobody likes those, even senior pilots with tons of experience.
Or be an Eagle pilot, you get to go home every night, even if you are on a combat department you at least have a comfy room to yourself. Nice long concrete runway that's always in the same place, chilling at the officer's club after work for a few beers. Get to see your wife/girlfriend every day or be able to go out and get laid on the regular.
> b-but naval aviators are better trained!!
>>27806957
the Libyan pilots ejected before missile impacts
no one died
>>27796406
VFA-103's colors are so sexy
>>27790485
What is the BONE?
>>27809571
>Because 12 hour days burn you out real fast man.
If you can't handle that how can you handle being deployed?
>Why do you wear scarves and iron your flight suit?
Literally nobody I know does either of those things...
Also, the IPs I know for Air Force who did the Navy T-6 training at Pensacola all had civilian jobs outside of flying because they had so much free time. It really blows my mind
>>27810623
>get to catapult off the bow of a carrier into a beautiful sunrise in the Pacific
>get to fuck women/ladyboys/hookers all over the world, people buy you drinks in any bar
>first to drop bombs if SHTF
>tfw Danger Zone
>get to fly with your best buddy providing you range to target and navigating so you can do the cool stuff
>sexier uniforms (summer whites hnggg)
>not ironing flight suits or wearing scarves
You're right. Being able to go home to my homely Air Force wife at my cold, shitty base in Bumfuck Nowhere, and never pushing myself or the aircraft beyond its designed airframe limits is such a great existence.
>tfw not pushing the envelope
>tfw no third wire traps
>>27810763
VFA-2 is the bestest.
>>27810815
>Air Force IP
>Pensacola
Choose one. USAF adopted the T6 before the Navy did, and use them very differently.
>If you can't handle (office fuck-fuck games in garrison) for 12 hours, how can you handle being deployed
What is mandatory crew rest? Bringing the airfield to the other country also makes it so you don't have to make those 30-hour flights, honey, or ask for permission from the Saudis to land. Tomcat (and later Rhino) guys rarely fly for more than 8 hours at a time, and then they get back to the boat and go to bed. There's no point in staying up for the sake of staying up.
>tfw Naval Aviators are also maintenance officers within the Squadron and get to know their airframe much better than the USAF could ever hope.
>>27810623
I hate water, I hate ships, and I like being in a single seater. Tandem seats don't seem so appealing, I'd like a side by side though.
So, Eagle it is.
>>27810886
>Eagle
>Side-by-side
niggerwhat.jpg
>I don't like tandem seats
>I don't like the Strike Eagle
>I am a faggot
>>27810893
I never said the eagle was side by side. I just said I like side by sides, and I don't like tandems.
I like the strike eagle but if I was a super cool fighter pilot I'd try to aim for a single seater, or a side by side, not tandem. What's hard to understand?
>>27810623
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58QOBqAWNzE
This is all you need to know about that.
>>27810825
Literally the only thing appealing here is Danger Zone
Nobody irons their flight suit. I'm really baffled that you think people do this.
>>27810867
>Choose one. USAF adopted the T6 before the Navy did, and use them very differently.
I know a lot of IPs who flew the T-6 with the Navy and then FAIPed. Also, a lot of IPs who are now older captains/young majors flew at pensacola as well before going to their MWS and then coming back to learn the T-6 and be an IP here. We still have Navy IPs here as well.
Our days are 12 hours duty (usually closer to 10) and 12 hours crew rest, with a lot of studying when not on base.
Nobody does 30 hour flights outside of B-52s and B-2s. ESPECIALLY not fighters. I'm wondering if you're a pilot at all at this point if you think that any fighters from any service do that shit.
>>27810867
>Bringing the airfield to the other country also makes it so you don't have to make those 30-hour flights, honey, or ask for permission from the Saudis to land.
Yes, because flying 5-8 hours across the Atlantic in a fighter is a much worse deal than being stuck on a semen filled aircraft carrier for months.
>>27810815
http://www.airforcescarves.com/
A whole site dedicated to each squadron's scarves to wear around the collar.
>>27810825
>implying AF officers, especially pilots, have to settle for a 2/10 hamplanet wife/gf.
>>27810946
*Seaman
Yes. Because being able to eat three square meals a day, watch movies and play XBOX instead of wearing a diaper and shitting yourself in the cockpit. Plus being able to launch continuous strikes 24/7.
>>27810999
>AF
>2/10 hamplanet
This is all true so far.
>settle
The boys in light blue would be trading up for a 2/10, no?
>>27810923
Are you an AF nugget?
>>27810979
Really grasping for straws here lol. Just because something exists doesn't mean people have it.
>>27811003
It was intentionally spelled semen, bro.
IDK why anyone would need a diaper for an 8 hour flight. Can you not poop and then withhold from pooping again for 6-8 hours? I guess it's not too unbelievable, seeing as your asshole is so stretched out from your time in the Navy.
>>27811030
>grasping for straws
>makes gayvy jab
Someone's getting desperate.
Stay stylish.
>>27796432
>>27796561
>>27796782
>>27796920
>>27797105
>>27797170
>>27797280
>>27797485
>>27806119
>>27806508
Top quality posting. I learned a lot. When did /k/ start attracting smart people?
>>27811074
Oh come on, admit that it was a pretty good zinger. At least I didn't literally use the word "gayvy" in it.
>>27811030
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/16/airforce.relief/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
"IDK why anyone would need a diaper for an 8 hour flight"
>>27810623
Tomcat, no question about it
>>27811119
>bag meant for pissing into that all fighter pilots, both USN and USAF get for long missions
>somehow means that pilots are shitting themselves.
lolz top shitposting mate
F-14s get shit on by Air Force jets. They're only good for bringing some nostalgia and for killing Russian bombers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSlnAhSxPWY
>>27811171
>comparing lightweight fighter to Mach 2+ interceptor
Honestly the fairest comparison would be an F-14 with a full combat load versus a slick F-111, or even an F-106
>>27811245
F-16 is Mach 2+ category as well.
A 4-ship of F-22s just did an interval takeoff into unrestricted climbs right above my house. Gonna have to change my pants.
>>27811272
The F-16 can reach Mach 2.0 but not exceed it.
>>27811272
Who is Col. Boyd?
What is the Lightweight Fighter Competition?
What is Energy/Maneuverability Theory?
Mach 2 is only slick and at altitude, try 380 knots for most engagements. F-14 was designed to go Mach 2.34 with Phoenix's at altitude...for intercepting Bears and Cruise Missiles.
>>27811398
Vid in >>27811171 has the HUD showing about 500 kts in the merge.
>>27811425
Faster != Better
F-16 can turn like a motherfucker, F-14 can run and climb like crazy.
>HUD shows 500kts in the merge
In the merge, sure. Do you want to go rocketing away from the engagement at 666kts (Mach 1)?
>>27811398
The Tomcat held its own against the F-15 in cross-branch exercises. It's an exaggeration to say that the F-14 was only effective against bombers. An AIM-54 will obliterate pretty much anything that flies, including fighters. And don't say "But it was designed to kill bombers!" The Phoenix had a large payload for killing bombers but that doesn't mean that it couldn't kill fighters as well. Frankly, if an AIM-54 comes your way, you're toast no matter what kind of plane you're in.
>>27811473
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm team Tomcat, but that was debunked earlier in the thread since Phoenix were only fired in anger thrice and failed twice.
>And don't say "but it was designed to kill bombers"
Literally the point of the F-X program. I love the Tomcat, it is one of my planefus and I get an erection every time I watch Danger Zone. The "Muh Phoenix!" meme needs to die and we cna all appreciate the F-14 for the awesome plane it is on its own merit.
>>27811830
>The Phoenix was only used three times in combat
The US Navy wasn't the only group to ever use the Tomcat you know.
>>27790679
>NOW, PREPARE TO SEE AND HEAR THE SHOOTDOWN OVER THE MEDITERRANEAN AS IF YOU WERE THERE, IN THE COCKPIT
>>27810020
Yes, but it had no missile's with which to employ it, until the AIM-120. AIM-7 is semi active STT only, for the tomcat and the eagle. hence, the ACE/AIMVAL tests, and the resultant amraam.
>>27798093
Im actually having trouble finding anything that list's the F-14's AoA capability, and Im mostly relying on memory. It was at LEAST 70 degrees, of that much I am positive. I'll keep digging though.
Here is a video of it doing high AoA testing. Decidedly NOT a cobra, despite the video title, but the display is an impressive look at the tomcats high AoA ability. Judge for yourself how high an angle that is.
Although, to be fair, only so much AoA is really useful anyway. At a certain point you are just turning you aircraft into a giant airbrake. Well, unless your gonna:
>hit the brakes, he'll fly right by
On an unrelated note, here is a printout of an F-14D's HUD, showing its max recorded g for that flight so far being 7.6 g , a good bit above the "6.5 g max " limit that was imposed on them.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-cp-d-pilot-02.htm
>>27810623
In the 80''s and 90's after topgun came out? Navy all the way. Navy boys got so much ass because of that movie its not even funny.
Talk all the shit you want about the movie TOPGUN, at least it wasnt Iron Eagle.
>>27811171
Some background for that clip: Those are instructors from REDFLAG in the vipers, and low hour F-14 pilots attending the exercise.
Heres another video for you, that show HUD cam footage of the tomcat killing basically every fighter in existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTsKANmFLDE
Yeah, that shit is rad, fucking 80s style.
Not that this or any single video prove anything.
The Viper was THE baddest dog fighter of the 4th gens, hands fucking down, no informed person would argue otherwise. Dat sustained turn rate...
>>27789918
>How did the F-14 compare to the F-15?
Eagle has higher roll rate, tighter turn radius, weighs less of course, faster acceleration and energy retention, better low speed stall recovery. It's the better fighter all around, with the Tomcat having the bomber-killing phoenix as it's only real advantage, which doesn't really matter anyways in a fighter vs. fighter comparison, where both aircraft are aware of each.
>>27798093
>>27814354
Heres a video of very high AoA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lVvfSQGqoc
>>27811830
What are the exact reasons the AIM-54 was not effective against 4th gen fighters?
>>27814410
>tighter turn radius
Nope.
Better sustained turn rate, not tighter turn rate.
>faster acceleration
Debatable, either way it was close. The tomcat was also notoriously fast and quick to get fast, as it was VERY sleek with the wings back.
>better low speed stall recovery
More forgiving, I would say, and thats all.
>with the Tomcat having the bomber-killing phoenix as it's only real advantage, which doesn't really matter anyways in a fighter vs. fighter comparison, where both aircraft are aware of each.
Why, exactly?
>>27814496
>Better sustained turn rate, not tighter turn rate.
Yes, the Eagle out turns the Tomcat, deal with it.
>Why, exactly?
The phoenix is only capable of hitting targets that barely change heading
>>27814543
>>27814496
>>27814410
>>27814354
"My dad can beat up your dad" - the unsourced argument endgame
>>27814543
>Yes, the Eagle out turns the Tomcat, deal with it.
Yeah, in a two circle fight. The eagle is a rate fighter, with an outstanding sustained turn rate, thanks to awesome engines. The tomcat wins a one circle fight, for it is a radius fighter, thanks to awesome lift given by its VG wings and spaced engine pancake fuselage.
>>27814543
Orly? Even though it was highly tested against aircraft pulling 7-8 g , and itself could pull ~20g at mach 4 to mach 5?
>>27814550
The tomcat was something less than danger zone implied, but the whole, " the tomcat actually sucked / phoenix= bombers only "meme needs to die.
>>27814635
>it is a radius fighter
It literally isn't, and pilots were taught to fight in the vertical
>>27814635
Yeah, I wasn't referring to how good/bad either was
just that neither of you are backing your statements up so I care very little
>>27795342
Hate can be based on simple envy, not fear.
No need for 'replacement' to figure in.
He also mentioned Viperfag and Tomcatfag hate,
and Superbug's not a replacement in either case.
Christ, but you're a stupid fucker.
>>27814668
A model pilots, since they had no thrust to keep their airspeed in tight turns. The tomcat is great in the vertical thanks to great lift. But B and D model's had the thrust and lift to retain their airspeed. The tomcat can pull a very tight turn at ~300kias.
>>27814354
>Viper
>Dat sustained turn rate...
>Not roll rate
Stay pleb
>>27815314
>roll rate
It isn't dubya dubya two anymore bud. It is nice for jinking when you are screwed but that is last ditch type of shit.
>>27816823
.... You literally don't know anything about acm..
Literally nothing.
>>27811398
>What is Energy/Maneuverability Theory?
An almost non existent 'theory' that never had to be 'thought' up in the first place, because fighters were designed with performance in mind since WW1...., with both speed, turn ability, and high and low altitude performance in mind.
>>27789939
>What is a Hornet?
>>27793473
>>27793619
>>27794112
The Super Hornet wouldn't look nearly as bad if it didn't have to be the replacement for the Intruder and the Tomcat and could just happily be the navies F-16.
>>27815314
Its roll rate is outstanding, but its about tied with many of its contemporary in that regard. Something like 240 degrees per second. An A-4, on the other hand, could roll over 360 degrees per second, and an F-5 something not far off.
But its sustained turn rate at medium to low altitude was THE best out there, better even than the fulcrum, with like 22-24 degrees sustained.
>>27816823
Roll rate is important. Its basically how quick you can change direction.
