tomcat F-14

[MigBuster 2,876]

Therefore, regardless of whether or not any were made, the point still stands--the F-14 got to shine via big name, big budget productions while the F-4 (and even the Hornet, for that matter, as I can only remember it being shot down on film) got no love from Hollywood.

This has nothing to do with how good the planes were in relative terms, but it has EVERYTHING to do with how many people will be fans of them.

 

The F-18 got a good showing in Independance day where it defended the earth with valour and distinction - and even took out that massive spaceship - surely that film was bigger than all 23 of the Iron Eagles put together?

 

But then again I suppose it was seen as more sci fi maybe and nobody noticed the Hornets :)

 

 

 

As for the F-4 - gets a small role in Die Hard 2, Flight of the Intruder, maybe a minute showing in we were soldiers and......

 

The F-15 kicked A in Air Force 1 - but again just a small cameo - surely the original Transformers gave it some glory for us kids though?

[Gr.Viper 131]

and even took out that massive spaceship

Wasn's it done mainly by ramming?

[MigBuster 2,876]

Oops - I forgot one of the F-4s biggest appearances came in Top Gun - near the end on a tiny photo with Pete and his Dad standing in front of it - the ultimate snub of a great jet

 

even the F-16 got a bigger role - Yes I have seen it too many times it would seem

[Nesher 629]

I love all 3 planes and like everyone here miss the Tomcat and the Phantom II

all have their own advantages and disadvantages

different roles but everlasting beauty! :)

 

the topic kinda misdirected a bit from the main request

but still got to be one of my favorites here in CA

great discussion guys, i read every reply and i learned a lot...

 

btw, the Tomcat got to be one of my favorites beacuse of JAG

(better than Top Gun any day!!!)

 

 

Cheers, Hen

[turkeydriver 4]

To be fair the F-4 carried a shark's mouth way before any tomcat did and it looks MEAN with it. If you can't recognize StreakEagle's point about the F-4 being more popular and recognizable you'er just not old enough or haven't read enough. Given in Japan the F-14 is arguable the most popular because they really wanted it.

(Watch Macross Zero.)

[+drdoyo 2]

Oops - I forgot one of the F-4s biggest appearances came in Top Gun - near the end on a tiny photo with Pete and his Dad standing in front of it - the ultimate snub of a great jet

 

even the F-16 got a bigger role - Yes I have seen it too many times it would seem

 

The Great Santini

[JediMaster 451]

I can't remember which plane first carried a shark's mouth on it...was it the Flying Tigers' P-40s? Or was there one that preceded it?

 

Yes, I generally disregard ID4 because the Hornets didn't fight REAL jets, just aliens. Speaking of FOTI, that means the A-6 has had more love than the F-4 from Hollywood! That's just not right.

[future_tuskegee_airman 13]

Anytime, baby?... anytime before the last airframe was retired

The F-15 may break into pieces if you pull 8gs, but it is still serving.

If the Israelis aren't lying about their losses, the F-15 is the only fighter in history to go undefeated in air combat while also being one of the longest serving. Whereas Iraqis have some Tomcat wreckage to plant in their gardens.

 

One guncam pic of an F-15 in an F-14 does not mean the F-14 was better at dogfighting. No doubt the Tomcat served long and well as a very capable platform... but when the Israelis needed a true air superiority fighter which did they pick and why?

 

The Israeli evaluation team wanted to have a head-to-head fly-off between the F-14 and F-15 to really see which one was better in a dogfight, but the US would not permit that (I think the reason is obvious: neither service wanted to risk losing funding to their programs if Israelis tests produced a clear winner).

 

So here is what the Israelis had to say about the F-14 versus the F-15 in dogfighting situations as quoted from Osprey Combat Aircraft . 67 Israeli F-15 Eagle Units in Combat:

 

David Ivry, who headed up the IDF/AF's Air Department/Group from 1973 to 1975, had flown an F-14 from Naval Air Station (NAS) Miramar during a visit to the USA in early 1974. The sortie involved several Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) scenarios against an A-4 Skyhawk flown by an adversary squadron. Ivry later recalled;

"I was impressed with the F-14, even though it was heavy on the controls. The aircraft's engines were also sensitive, which meant that it was impossible to fly the Tomcat agressively as we would our jets."

 

Israel Baharav was intimately involved in the evaluation of the F-14, and he later recalled;

"During our evaluation of the F-14 and F-15 against the F-4 and A-4, we stuck firmly to the principles of the superior fighter versus the inferior jet. We prepared ourselves accordingly, and were thoroughly familiar with the performance statistics associated with all four aircraft. We instinctively figured that the F-14 and F-15 would carry more energy coming into the fight, but that they would turn more slowly than the A-4 in particular. Despite our preparations, we were simply amazed when we flew the F-15 against the F-4. The Eagle maintained its thrust-to-weight advantage and turned much quicker than the F-4. Here we had a superior fighter that was also more maneuverable than the inferior jet! When we evaluated the F-14, the US Navy pilots at NAS Miramar told us that the Tomcat could perform equally as well in a dogfight with an A-4. This did not prove to be the case, however, for when I flew the TA-4 against the F-14, the end result of the engagement was embarrassment for the Tomcat. Not only could the TA-4 out-turn the F-14, but during the turn itself, the Tomcat's energy state dropped so low that I was able to fly the TA-4 in the vertical as though the Skyhawk was teh superior fighter than the F-14 the inferior!

 

Assaf Ben-Nun also flew a two-hour sortie in a TA-4F that included DACT against the F-14, and he too was disappointed to discover that the Skyhawk was superor to the F-14 in the WVR air combat scenario. He then flow a one-hour Tomcat mission from Naval Air Facility El Centro, in California, with the US Navy pilot Keith Sheehan in the back seat. Ben Nun remembered;

"The F-14 lacked thrust, was complex and not user-friendly and was not aerodynamically clean -- indeed, the jet shuddered every time I pulled high-G or high angle-of-attack. During my sortie, I flew DACT against Amnon Arad in a Skyhawk, and although we finished with honours even at the end of the session, I found it hard to believe that the F-14 had no edge whatsoever over the A-4 in WVR air combat."

 

The TF30 turbofans were the downfall of the F-14A, making it both unreliable and underpowered.

The F-15's F100 turbofan had its issues, but when it came time to upgrade engines, the F-14 and F-16 got major upgrades first while the F-15 kept its old F100 because the thrust to weight of the F-15 was considered adequate without an upgrade. With uprated engines, the F-15 retains the thrust-to-weight advantage it always had over all other US fighters until the arrival of the F-22.

 

Of course, while Israel chose the F-15, Iran chose the F-14... both countries could have had either one yet chose differently. I do not know the criteria that caused Iran to choose the F-14 over the F-15, though I would guess that they wanted the Phoenix weapons system to shutdown MiG-25 overflights. Of course, Israel found the F-15 was adequate in that role while being far more useful in the WVR combat situation they normally encountered.

 

While I am sad to see the Tomcat retired, I certainly don't see it as such a great aircraft that no other could equal it or replace it. Of course, it would be nice if the Navy had replaced the Tomcat with an aircraft that actually had better range, payload, and preformance... but such is the way of politics and budget slashing in this post cold war world: the Super Hornet is smaller and cheaper.

 

Streakeagle I just had a quick question. Did you read the osprey publication

Where the Iranians were actually able to test the F-14 vs the F-15 and their response?

 

I'll try to summarize what they said as best as possible from memory. (I own the book and have read it from cover to cover twice)

 

"Both the IIAF and the Shah had studied the F-14A and the F-15A since their inception. In 1972, we learned that the F-15A with the AIM-7F missile was to be a deadly fighter-weapon mix, but not as deadly and the AIM-54-armed F-14A. It was clear to us that the F-14/AWG-9 pulse Doppler radar/AIM-54 combination would be unequalled in the world."

 

He goes on to say, "...we also concluded earlier on that the F-15A would not be as manoeuvrable or as flexible as the F-14A. The Tomcat has very straightforward flight chatacteristics, but is highly agile...the F-14A always wins against the F-15A."

 

And if you doubt his credibility he states, "I was later to fly F-15As with the USAF in mock-dogfights against US Navy F-14As."

 

The Iranians chose the F-14A over the F-15A not only because of what was mentioned above but also; to have a "flying radar" to cover the lapses in radar coverage along with an interceptor of Mig-25R's.

 

If you need anymore info I will be more than happy to supply.

[MigBuster 2,876]

Yes, I generally disregard ID4 because the Hornets didn't fight REAL jets, just aliens. Speaking of FOTI, that means the A-6 has had more love than the F-4 from Hollywood! That's just not right.

 

 

LOL - I pity the fools in Hollywood for not casting the F-4 instead! - although difficult to say how many hearts the poor old A-6 actually captured looking like that :)

 

 

 

The Great Santini

 

Never heard of that till now - although 1979 - probably why - gets good reviews on the IMDB thou

[MigBuster 2,876]

I can't remember which plane first carried a shark's mouth on it...was it the Flying Tigers' P-40s? Or was there one that preceded it?

 

still no idea tbh - http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/m...ead.main/61374/

[MigBuster 2,876]

"Both the IIAF and the Shah had studied the F-14A and the F-15A since their inception. In 1972, we learned that the F-15A with the AIM-7F missile was to be a deadly fighter-weapon mix, but not as deadly and the AIM-54-armed F-14A. It was clear to us that the F-14/AWG-9 pulse Doppler radar/AIM-54 combination would be unequalled in the world."

 

He goes on to say, "...we also concluded earlier on that the F-15A would not be as manoeuvrable or as flexible as the F-14A. The Tomcat has very straightforward flight chatacteristics, but is highly agile...the F-14A always wins against the F-15A."

 

Had they actually flown them at this point? looks like they had just studied them on paper - otherwise he would have picked up on the underpowered and limited engines the F-14A had.

 

The statement "the F-14A always wins against the F-15A" is not shown in its true context - so I will assume that means on paper specifications only. Bit like the RAF concluding the Tornado ADV always wins against the F-14/F-15 because of better range,cheaper cost and job retention. :)

Edited August 14, 2008 by MigBuster

[Echarlie 0]

The first flight of the Eagle was in July 72, with Cat 1 CDT&E testing still to follow. I very much doubt that the Eagle was doing any actual head to head fly offs against anything let alone the Tomcat in 1972.

 

As far as the Eagle flying apart at 8 G's goes, the last I heard the USAF had selected 178 "Golden Eagles" to be rebuilt and have the latest avionics upgrades at depot 2008-2010. They are then expected to soldier on untill 2025 to augment the F-22 force. THe rest of the fleet is to be retired. (Strike Eagles will also be flying of course)

 

Too bad they couldnt (wouldnt) do that with the Super Tomcat. With such small numbers of the D that were built It wouldnt have cost that much. Then you Navy boys would actually have a plane that could compete with us. (duckin and coverin) ;-D

 

EagleCharlie

USAF

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

Not only could it bomb accurately, but it could bomb more accurately than F-15Es - which is why for delicate targets in populated areas, FACs called for Tomcats. The analogy I've heard is: the Strike Eagle could put a bomb into a building; the Tomcat could put a bomb in the 3rd floor window, second from the left.

 

Oddly enough, my job in OEF in 01-02 was that of calling in air strikes. In my Area of Operations our ROE required JDAMs only to be used on all "delicate targets in populated areas." During this time the F-14D had no JDAM capability. The F-14D went operational with JDAM on March 1st, 2003 in time for OIF.

 

Although, in my missions I had very little experience with targets in urban areas, infact the one time I called in a JDAM strike on a target of this type it was an orbiting BUFF that released the weapon.

 

I did have experience using Tomcats, and for the most part they performed well and got good effects, but I'm not going to say they performed any better than any other airframe. We never under any circumstance called for any airframe over another. Boots on the ground don't make that call. We call for the ordinance that will destroy the target, honestly we could care less what a/c is carring it, what branch of service it is from, or in certain cases what nationality the pilot is, as long as the target is serviced.

 

I think the analogy you heard was just some hopeful boasting from Tomcat people. I'm sure F-15E/F-18F/B-52H/B-1B/B-2A/F-16C etc. people all said the exact same thing.

 

Antherthing to note is, the "3rd story window, 2nd from the right" thing is a bunch of hogwash. It also doesn't really matter. When you are hitting a structure with a 2000 pound bomb, especially one in Afghanistan, no matter where you hit it, the occupants are going to have a bad day. Also the guidance capabilities of the Tomcat D and Strike Eagle were on par with each other (although I can't recall if the E's were using the LITENING II targeting pod in '01) the bombing from both a/c were on par with each other as well.

 

I'm in no way saying anything bad about the Tomcat or saying the Strike Eagle is way better. I'm just trying to provide an unbiased viewpoint to your statement.

[MigBuster 2,876]

Oddly enough, my job in OEF in 01-02 was that of calling in air strikes. In my Area of Operations our ROE required JDAMs only to be used on all "delicate targets in populated areas." During this time the F-14D had no JDAM capability. The F-14D went operational with JDAM on March 1st, 2003 in t..........

 

Cool - thanks for the insight from someone who actually knows

[+Typhoid 231]

Oddly enough, my job in OEF in 01-02 was that of calling in air strikes. In my Area of Operations our ROE required JDAMs only to be used on all "delicate targets in populated areas." During this time the F-14D had no JDAM capability. The F-14D went operational with JDAM on March 1st, 2003 in time for OIF.

 

Although, in my missions I had very little experience with targets in urban areas, infact the one time I called in a JDAM strike on a target of this type it was an orbiting BUFF that released the weapon.

 

I did have experience using Tomcats, and for the most part they performed well and got good effects, but I'm not going to say they performed any better than any other airframe. We never under any circumstance called for any airframe over another. Boots on the ground don't make that call. We call for the ordinance that will destroy the target, honestly we could care less what a/c is carring it, what branch of service it is from, or in certain cases what nationality the pilot is, as long as the target is serviced.

 

I think the analogy you heard was just some hopeful boasting from Tomcat people. I'm sure F-15E/F-18F/B-52H/B-1B/B-2A/F-16C etc. people all said the exact same thing.

 

Antherthing to note is, the "3rd story window, 2nd from the right" thing is a bunch of hogwash. It also doesn't really matter. When you are hitting a structure with a 2000 pound bomb, especially one in Afghanistan, no matter where you hit it, the occupants are going to have a bad day. Also the guidance capabilities of the Tomcat D and Strike Eagle were on par with each other (although I can't recall if the E's were using the LITENING II targeting pod in '01) the bombing from both a/c were on par with each other as well.

 

I'm in no way saying anything bad about the Tomcat or saying the Strike Eagle is way better. I'm just trying to provide an unbiased viewpoint to your statement.

 

your points are well taken, but don't forget that the F14D had laser guided before that. JDAM is not/was not the only PGM in town. But certainly a fictional stretch to say that any one of those aircraft, using essentially the same weapons and guidance packages, could do any differently.

 

Having said that -

 

a pointless argument. Those were all great planes in their own right for their own missions and outstanding airframes for a variety of missions. All legends.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Typhoid

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

your points are well taken, but don't forget that the F14D had laser guided before that. JDAM is not/was not the only PGM in town. But certainly a fictional stretch to say that any one of those aircraft, using essentially the same weapons and guidance packages, could do any differently.

 

Having said that -

 

a pointless argument. Those were all great planes in their own right for their own missions and outstanding airframes for a variety of missions. All legends.

 

Oh I know that the JDAM is not the only PGM available, in fact I believe laser guidance is actually more accurate. Officially (and if you are a former Naval Aviator like I think you are, you know what I mean by that) LGBs are accurate to within 15 meters and GPS are accurate to within 30. However, for some reason a desicion well above my eceholon was made that we could only use GPS guided munitions in those situations. That is not to say laser guided bombs were not being used in urban enviornments, they were not being used in those enviornments on targets designated by teams on the ground. This was before the PLGR battery events that caused the fratricide involving the JDAM and the B-52. (I would like to speak more about this incident, but for obvious reasons I can't.)

 

Possibly one of the most impressive things I accomplished in my military carreer was witnessing a 2 ship of B-52s competely devistate an area. The BONEs were pretty impressive too.

[New Guy 1]

Um, I just want to ask. The Eagle has structural problems a while back, on fuselage to nose section joints (if I'm not mistaken). How's the story? And also does the Tomcat has similar problems beside of its early engines?

[+Typhoid 231]

Oh I know that the JDAM is not the only PGM available, in fact I believe laser guidance is actually more accurate. Officially (and if you are a former Naval Aviator like I think you are, you know what I mean by that) LGBs are accurate to within 15 meters and GPS are accurate to within 30. However, for some reason a desicion well above my eceholon was made that we could only use GPS guided munitions in those situations. That is not to say laser guided bombs were not being used in urban enviornments, they were not being used in those enviornments on targets designated by teams on the ground. This was before the PLGR battery events that caused the fratricide involving the JDAM and the B-52. (I would like to speak more about this incident, but for obvious reasons I can't.)

 

Possibly one of the most impressive things I accomplished in my military carreer was witnessing a 2 ship of B-52s competely devistate an area. The BONEs were pretty impressive too.

 

 

[column5 62]

Um, I just want to ask. The Eagle has structural problems a while back, on fuselage to nose section joints (if I'm not mistaken). How's the story? And also does the Tomcat has similar problems beside of its early engines?

 

 

The F-14 did have some problems with the wing sweep mechanism that limited them to a max of 4 Gs for a period in the mid 70s. Other than that I am not aware of any structural problems or fleetwide groundings.

[gbnavy61 1]

I did have experience using Tomcats, and for the most part they performed well and got good effects, but I'm not going to say they performed any better than any other airframe. We never under any circumstance called for any airframe over another. Boots on the ground don't make that call. We call for the ordinance that will destroy the target, honestly we could care less what a/c is carring it, what branch of service it is from, or in certain cases what nationality the pilot is, as long as the target is serviced.

 

I think the analogy you heard was just some hopeful boasting from Tomcat people. I'm sure F-15E/F-18F/B-52H/B-1B/B-2A/F-16C etc. people all said the exact same thing.

 

Antherthing to note is, the "3rd story window, 2nd from the right" thing is a bunch of hogwash. It also doesn't really matter. When you are hitting a structure with a 2000 pound bomb, especially one in Afghanistan, no matter where you hit it, the occupants are going to have a bad day. Also the guidance capabilities of the Tomcat D and Strike Eagle were on par with each other (although I can't recall if the E's were using the LITENING II targeting pod in '01) the bombing from both a/c were on par with each other as well.

 

I'm in no way saying anything bad about the Tomcat or saying the Strike Eagle is way better. I'm just trying to provide an unbiased viewpoint to your statement.

 

I understand what you're saying.

 

My little blurb there comes from something I read (in a book) that said the Tomcat was more accurate because the RIO's display was larger and allowed him better resolution than a Strike Eagle WSO to pick out targets. Not that a bomb being put into a specific window would make much of a difference, but the fact that a high level of accuracy was available wasn't a shortcoming. Also, I read in the same book, at least one event where a Tomcat was able to hit a target that likely couldn't have been identified from another platform. Literally, the ground controllers were describing a building's exterior details (like number of windows) to help the Tomcats find the specific building to hit amid the others.

 

Regardless, I definitely see that as a ground-pounder, one wouldn't care who delivers the bombs or how, he'd just want them on target in a timely manner. I also think that you're right - for a 2000lb bomb versus building, it doesn't matter what window it goes into, the building loses.

 

***

 

I had to watch The Great Santini for a class once. It had about 4 milliseconds of F-4 footage in it. From what I remember those were the better parts of the movie. The story was somewhat engrossing, but I felt let down in the end. It was just kind of a weird movie. Then again, I haven't watched it in a while.

Edited August 15, 2008 by gbnavy61

[+streakeagle 866]

I challenge anyone to find anywhere in my posts where I have insulted the Tomcat or any of the people who flew and maintained it.

I have challenged the opinion that the Tomcat was the best and most famous US fighter just of all time.

I have tried to challenge those opinions with facts and "informed opinions" quoted from other sources.

I am human, so certainly some personal bias can be found in some of my comments, but I consider this inconsequential compared to the level of bias in many of the pro-Tomcat posts.

I did not intend and do not think I have directly attacked anyone posting here, other than disagreeing with statements and trying to support my opposing views... which, correct me if I am wrong, is one of the primary functions of a forum even within a given topic.

 

I recognize the Tomcat's strengths, and understand why so many people like it, but it was far from perfect and I of course would argue that overall, its weaknesses prevent it from being the overall best all-around fighter among its contemporaries. The AWG-9/AIM-54 combination combined with speed, range, and endurance gave it the potential to be the best interceptor. Under ideal test conditions, it mostly demonstrated that potential. But for many reasons, that potential was never realized in US service. The Iranian experience is hard to judge, because any failures on their part can be blamed on lack of training, parts, etc., likewise successes can be blamed on the poor training and equipment of their opponents... which is a problem the Israelis face: have they really been so good all these years, or was it that their opponents were just so bad? Perhaps if the Shah had not fallen and the US fully supported Iran, the Tomcat would have easily surpassed the F-15's combat record and made the Iraq-Iran war substantially shorter with the absolute air superiority it was capable of providing. But that is all speculation and we will never know.

 

Instead of complaining about its retirement, Tomcat fans should be happy that the F-14D was ever even built. I saw the prototype F-14D at Miramar and was afraid it was never going to be produced as the Navy budget axes were already starting to fall before Desert Shield even started (though they really fell after Desert Storm was over). The F-14D represented what the Tomcat should have always been (as the F-15E is for the Eagle). The F-4 set the precedent: a two-man fighter with high thrust-to-weight, the best radar available, and the ability to accurately employ every weapon in the US inventory is far more useful than dedicated interceptors and dogfighters. Both the F-14 and F-15 always had the capacity to be outstanding multi-role aircraft, but were purchased and employed as if they were 1-dimensional due to politics and the embarrassment of the Vietnam air-to-air record compared to Korea. The main problem with these two aircraft is their price. Otherwise, every USAF fighter and attack aircraft could have been F-15Es and every Navy carrier fighter and attack aircraft could have been F-14Ds. Budget problems not only forced the Navy to settle for F/A-18Es, the USAF was trying to replace F-4Gs and A-10s with F-16s and only got a fraction of the F-15Es they needed. When compared as multirole aircraft, rather than fighters, the F-14D is more competitive as the Strike Eagle gained some weight and initially kept the older lower-powered engines of the F-15C. While the swing-wing cost quite a bit in terms of weight and purchase prices, the fully swept back position gives it a much better ride quality for high-speed, low-level penetration missions... from that perspective, the F-15E was considered a downgrade from the F-111 it was replacing... But the USAF didn't even consider the F-14 when it had the fly-off between the F-15 and F-16 for the Strike Eagle contract. They missed out, because in many ways it was the best plane for the mission.

 

For better or worse, it is looking like the F-22 and F-35 may really be the last manned fighters the US ever buys, which would leave the F-14D as the best fighter ever stationed on aircraft carriers since aside from being more stealthy, the F-35 is a downgrade compared to the F-14D.

[Mannie 21]

Hen.

This debate about which is a better fighter began long ago. Since day One of those fighters serving in the US armed forces.

I'm kinda surprised this debate still goes on.

[Icarus999 70]

Wow this is a heated thread, lots of strong opinions. Mine???? The F-14D was the best ACM aircraft that ever flew until the debut of the F-22 . If it is true that the bugs were finally worked out of the AWG-9 and the late model Aim 54C and that the f-14D could indeed track 24 aircraft and simultaneously fire on 6 targets, then the f-22 is a step backwards as an interceptor. However in reality the stealth capability of the Raptor means that the tomcat much like the eagle would never know the f-22 was there until it was dead. Combine stealth with thrust vectoring and fire and forget BVR on an aircraft thats a fantastic dogfighter to begin with and you rule the sky.

 

The F-14D was a brute.... a huge and powerful interceptor that thanks to its new engines could turn with the best of them. If anything the f-14D was overpowered to the point of being scary.

The idea of it being replaced by the super bug is a joke to me( it's a feeling much like having your wife tell you that from now on Gary Coleman will be taking over your bedroom duties) and speaks poorly to the funding/ desision making ability of our government.

 

the D is was what the F-14 should have been from the start.

 

Now back to the f-14 vs f-15 question

 

My dad flew The F-4J, F-4N, F-4S and the F-14A as well as the A-4SE/SF And the F-5E. According to dad F-14A vs f-15A ACM was a "roll of the dice" with neither aircraft proving itself to be clearly superior- the f-15A had better acceleration and sometimes that worked to their advantage, the f-14A had a huge BVR/ Radar advantage and on occasion when they were allowed to use it they dominated eagles who lacked Awacs support. Two sets of eyes in the cockpit/ splitting the work load were another tomcat advantage.

 

It was the training of the aircrew that was the most important factor not the aircraft. Pilots who flew F-14A and F-15A often got their asses handed to them by fleet and reserve squadrons flying the F-4N and F-4S phantoms in DACM. One reserve unit flying the old F-4N with the outdated engines that left dark smoke trails and lacking the leading edge slats of the S model, beat out all other navy fighter squadrons in DACM kills. They took on everything the USN/ USAF and USMC could throw at them and emerged victorious flying jets that were 20 years old, thoroughly embarrassing all of the active units navy units( especially the tomcat guys) . They were a bunch of old guys who knew their aircrafts strengths and weaknesses, who years before had to eat their pride and learn from experience as better pilots in A-4's or F-5's ate them alive.

 

This does not mean that the F-4/ A-4/ or F-5 are better fighters than the F-14/ F-15..... all that it means is that neither the f-14A or f-15A are the invincible super fighters that so many people

fantasize them to be.

 

Now the f-14D... well thats a super fighter!!! .... but even it can lose a dogfight.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Icarus999

[gbnavy61 1]

I challenge anyone to find anywhere in my posts where I have insulted the Tomcat or any of the people who flew and maintained it.

 

Check your first post, for starters.

[column5 62]

I challenge anyone to find anywhere in my posts where I have insulted the Tomcat or any of the people who flew and maintained it.

 

Where you called us cultists is the most obvious.