F-14 VS F-15

[Erwin_Hans 6]

Tomcat and Eagle are all deadly aircraft in USAF/USN.

 

I read there was a training between F-14 and F-15.And F-14 won,but I also read the pilots of F-15 are new birds

 

So which is better indeed?

 

 

[Abhi 3]

it depends on the type of loadout and the pilots.

technically i think the f-14 was better than f-15 .

it had more weapon load as compared to eagle,more range and the phoenix missile.The AIM-54/AWG-9 combination was the first to have multiple trackcapability (up to 24 targets) and launch (up to 6 Phoenixes can belaunched nearly simultaneously) with the phoenix it could engage targets far than 150 kms.it was the only active radar homing missile in the us service.

 

but it was expensive and maintainence intensive.

 

was retired in 2006,bad decision.

[+Gepard 11,324]

I think the Eagle was better. Its in service still today, the Tomcat isnt.

[+Dave 2,322]

The F-14 was mauled very badly by the F-15. To the point the Navy actually quit the fly offs.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Tomcat and Eagle are all deadly aircraft in USAF/USN.

 

I read there was a training between F-14 and F-15.And F-14 won,but I also read the pilots of F-15 are new birds

 

So which is better indeed?

 

What versions are you comparing exactly? Weapons loads? are we talking 1 on 1 in a turning fight or BVR? what do you mean by better?

 

You can read varying accounts - and they will all lead to the same thing - neither was better overall.

 

I have accounts of Israeli pilots choosing the F-15A over the F-14A because they thought it was better after testing them. On the other hand I have Iranian Pilots saying they chose the F-14A over the F-15A because it was better in a low speed turning fight and better at BVR blah - although even they say the F-14 wasn't much good at turning with 4 AIM-54s on the belly because of the weight.

 

F-15A had a single pilot but the F-14A had 2 pilots so was better in that regards.

 

F-14A Originally had the pants TF30 engines that were prone to compressor stalls - a thing experienced by Iranian pilots in combat - and also AFAIK one reason why the first female US Naval aviator died - but not really another thing you would want to manage. SO the F-15A had better engines and was faster so was better in that regards.

 

Then BVR - The F-14A was almost a weapons system built around the AWG-9 and active AIM-54As - which in theory was far better than the Semi-Active AIM-7s the longest range missile carried by the F-15A. The F-14A was the only platform that could intercept the Recon version of the MiG-25RB - which regularly flew over Iran till F-14As came into service.

 

Israel by their accounts had no such luck with the R/RB - the F-15A was unable to intercept them coming over Israel - but managed to get one when it was damaged by a HAWK SAM and had to come to lower altitudes. I have read the US had a zoom climb tactic to deal with 25R/RBs - but this was never put to practise AFAIK

 

However BVR doesnt mean jack if you cant ID the target 40 miles away as friend or foe.

 

Not to mention how good the AIM-54A really was against a nimble target with RHAW and good counter measures - because it was designed to shoot down big bombers. Iran claim to have many kills with the AIM-54A - used in conjunction with the AWG-9 and IFF - but this does not give an accurate picture - because the Iraqi pilots in about 90% of the cases probably didn't know they had been fired at until they were hit - dues to lack of RWR or RWRs that couldnt detect the threat.

Edited August 25, 2009 by MigBuster

[FastCargo 412]

I think the Eagle was better. Its in service still today, the Tomcat isnt.

 

That really has nothing to do with an aircraft being better in an air combat sense.

 

Life on a carrier is hard on aircraft...ask Typhoid, he was a MX officer at one point for Tomcats.

 

It'll never be known if a navalized version of the F-15 would have fared any better.

 

MigBuster's analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Eagle and Tomcat is spot on. Having flown with operators of both aircraft, the sense I get is that in a lot of ways, the aircraft were roughly evenly matched due to various tradeoffs...a trait that continued with the updates to both aircraft.

 

I will also say that exercises that pit various aircraft against each other tend to have their own issues, because you can setup the exercises to favor one side or the other. This can be good for training (make your life harder in training than when the missiles REALLY start flying) but can be bad for straight up evals.

 

Even when the missiles start flying for real, there still isn't a pure objective analysis. Skill of the pilots, tactics, ROE, weather, etc can all play a significant part in the results of an air combat matchup.

 

FC

[+Typhoid 231]

That really has nothing to do with an aircraft being better in an air combat sense.

 

Life on a carrier is hard on aircraft...ask Typhoid, he was a MX officer at one point for Tomcats.

 

It'll never be known if a navalized version of the F-15 would have fared any better.

 

MigBuster's analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Eagle and Tomcat is spot on. Having flown with operators of both aircraft, the sense I get is that in a lot of ways, the aircraft were roughly evenly matched due to various tradeoffs...a trait that continued with the updates to both aircraft.

 

I will also say that exercises that pit various aircraft against each other tend to have their own issues, because you can setup the exercises to favor one side or the other. This can be good for training (make your life harder in training than when the missiles REALLY start flying) but can be bad for straight up evals.

 

Even when the missiles start flying for real, there still isn't a pure objective analysis. Skill of the pilots, tactics, ROE, weather, etc can all play a significant part in the results of an air combat matchup.

 

FC

 

good points all.

 

I was a MO for a Hummer squadron though, not a Turkey squadron.

[DWCAce 19]

Spot on FC.... Simple answer, it DEPENDS

[eraser_tr 29]

The F-15A would probably have been a better choice than the F-14A because of the engines, but an F-14D, well thats another story even against an F-15C.

 

The reason the F-14 isn't still in service isn't because one aircraft was better. I read the F-14D was actually outperforming the superhornet in Afghanistan until it was retired. It was a combination of politics and money. Grumman saw no viable alternative to furthering the tomcat program in the early 90s and overpriced the D models and future developments. Cheney, being a spiteful motherf***er gave it the axe for it. Much as Gates went after the F-22. By 2006 the airframes were so worn out that they were too expensive to keep flying and maintain.

[Caesar 305]

Why...why...WHY would you ask this question?

 

And last I checked, when the F-14A and F-15A first went at eachother, the fight was over in less than 80 seconds with both Tomcats holding gun tracking solutions on both Eagles, one at 10,000 feet, one at 30,000 feet. Then the photo footage of the F-15's getting waxed by the Tomcats got out in Aviation Week which caused a massive uproar with our generals because Japan was second-guessing their Eagle buy and it took a bit of coaxing to get them back. Of note, this fly-off was done at the end of AIMVAL/ACEVAL with some of the best crews available to both the USAF and USN at the time. Tomcat 1's crew was Joe "Hoser" Satrapa and Bill "Hill Billy" Hill, Tomcat 2 was Dan "Turk" Pentecost and Frank "Fearless" Schumacher; they split the fight into 2 1v1's, Hoser going low, Turk going high, both killing their Eagles with "minimal heavy breathing" over the radio.

 

Which made the Eagle's AIM/ACE patches "How about now, Baby?" (for example) pretty funny...

 

BUT!

 

The assessments made here by MB pretty much back what I hear from Tomcat crews: it depended on where you were in the envelope, and at what altitude, and where at.

 

VF-14 and VF-32 flew off against F-15's out of Langley in the late 1970's and found that in a multi-bogey environment, and in turning fights below 20,000 feet, the F-14 had the advantage. If they wound up higher than 20,000 feet, they lost a lot of advantages, adding to the fact that the TF-30 hated the thin air above that point. The Tomcat *might* have better wing loading, depending on its weapon configuration, getting as low as 55psf or as high as over 100psf, as related by Admiral Gilchrist. The Tomcat also had maneuver flaps and slats helping it at lower speeds. The Eagle had a massive advantage in T:W over the F-14A, and could also have a wing-loading advantage based upon the loadouts.

 

The F-14B was a real kick in the head, though, easily comparable to the F-15C, and again, depending on where you were, would either have advantage or disadvantage. Dave "Hey Joe" Parsons was one of the first to witness what the "Big Engines" did to the Tomcat, as his pilot entered a one-circle fight with an F-16, got the advantage, and as the Viper tried to use the vertical to escape, wound up getting gunned because the GE engines allowed the Tomcat to follow it without issue. Against the F-15, their first encounters in the late 1980's (1988, IIRC) the Tomcats utterly slaughtered the Eagles, who were not expecting them to follow into the vertical. In one fight Parsons describes the Bravo going "literally canopy-to-canopy with the Eagle." The debrief started with "Uhh...did you guys get new engines?" It was also one of the few planes that could chase down an RF-111F on the deck.

 

Another Tomcat driver, callsign "Cosmo" took his F-14B up against an Israeli F-16, wound up in a 4-and-a-half minute fight that ended with the F-16 calling Joker before a decisive victory could be had.

 

In essence, neither plane is better. Both have their advantages and their disadvantages, but it all depends on the pilot, not the plane. It doen't take a "Hoser," "Frosty," "Snort," or "Heater" to whoop someone's ass in even an "A-" Tomcat, it was a damn fine plane and designed from the onset to be able to dogfight.

But I'm just using the above examples to illustrate that point. In reality, I acknowledge full well that both the Tomcat and the Eagle are fine airframes, and I would not call one better than the other, realistically. It's the guy at the stick that decides the victor.

 

 

(Shot of Hoser's pipper on the Eagle driver's helmet from that initial fight)

 

Also, Eraser_tr hit the nail on the head. The Tomcat was not retired due to airfram capability at all; rather the axing of the program in 1992 by then-SECDEF Cheney. Not much for the airframes to do but get older, lack parts and eventually wear out their usefulness.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Caesar

[turkeydriver 4]

The F-14 was mauled very badly by the F-15. To the point the Navy actually quit the fly offs.

 

Utter service rivalry crap. The navy can produce a similiar patch. "Mechanicswise" yes the planes were very evenly matched, with the Eagle having better engines from the get go and better T-W. The "flyoffs" referred to must be reference to engagements during AIMVAL/ACEVAL where actual engagment between the two was strictly off limits. They happened anyway, with the anonymous tomcat pilots getting guns kills after long engagements. Note this isnt due to the aircraft but due to the pilot's experienceThe HUD tape was confiscated and pilots reprimanded. (I have seen a printed picture of the turkey pilot's HUD with the gun pipper on the F-15 cockpit)*****edit Caeser beat me to it, see above**** When Aviation Week got word that Japan, who were being groomed for an F-15 buy, wanted to take the F-14 instead aftert the forbidden F-14/F-15 duels during AIMVAL/ACEVAL, everyone ensured the further engagemnts where squashed because of the marketing of the F-15 and the political pressure behind the buys. When the F-14A+ arrived, the aircraft had no problem ACM'ing on equal terms with the Eagle. I don't have to defend it, basic physics will show it to you. I'll never take anything away from the mighty F-15 as it backs up everything said about it and it has an amazing kill ratio thanks to Israel and our engagements with third world countries, but anyone trying to push the argument one way or the other isn't looking at facts. After 1991, when it was known the tomcat's days were numbered, the Navy put restrictions on the airframe during peacetime, to prolong the airframe and reduce maintenance costs. Training on tomcat ACM began to slide as concentration on bombing took a more prominent role. A navalised F-15 was most definetly researched to be a lower cost F-14 derivative. Simulation and analysis figured it would take 3 navalised F-15s to equal the intercept capability of a single F-14 and the F-15 would have far inferior performance to the Air Force version due to increaseed weight and strengthening to deal with navy life. As far as the above quote, the Airforce flew F-4s because of the flyoff between it as a navy jet and the F-102. The air force was not about to do the same thing with the F-15, it had too much riding on the design on reputation and cost. If the foreign sales of the F-15 had swung towards the tomcat-the F-15 would have been an extremely expensive troublesome fighter and the F-14 would have enjoyed lower cost and more improvements based on having a wider cutomer base with a fat funding promise. History favored the F-15 which isn't a bad decision at all. We couldn't afford both cold war jets, and the F-15 is a great bird for any Air Force. The Superbug fulfills the Navy's needs at this current time, and let's face it-air superiority over the land battlespace is an Air Force job-bravo to the F-22. Battles aren't being fought over blue water anymore despite the threat systems being developed. Until a Navy ship gets engaged by an airborne threat, the navy will never see priority placed on air defence like it did in the Cold War. So we will continue using a glorified light strike bird with afterburners that accelerates like a mac truck and burns gas like a Lamborghini-it can do its job though b/c of AIM-120C7(rolls eyes)

At least I've got my flight sims to live the glory days.

Edited August 26, 2009 by turkeydriver

[Biggus 0]

These sorts of comparison need qualifications. I'd be more interested in a match up between those fighters and their supporting assets, which would probably be more indicative of effectiveness. F-14/E-2C/CBG vs F-15/E-3C? One on one, the F-14's better sensor range would probably mean that it would dictate the circumstances of the engagement, but that's pretty meaningless these days. When was the last US kill without AWACS?

[+Gepard 11,324]

The Tomcat was a very nice bird. No question about it. It was well promoted in the cinema with "Top Gun" movie. A lot of its reputation came from this movie.

The Tomcat had an outstanding performance as interceptor. It was designed to defend the US carrier battle groups against soviet bombers. It was the first plane with lift body design but it was the last fighter with swing wings. And the swing wings are the weakpoint (not only at the Tomcat, also at the MiG-23 etc.) The swing wing design is heavy and potential dangerous for the pilot. Cracks on the swing wings grounded very often the entire Tomcat fleet.

As a dogfighter the F-14 performed not very wellagainst german MiG-29s, while israeli F-15s made a much better job in test fights against the german Fulcrums.

The design of the Eagle is much more reliable. This plane had an outstanding performance to withstand battle damages. In one case 1982 a syrian MiG shot a missile on an Eagle and the half wing of the F-15 was blown away. The F-15 managed the way home. In an other case a SAM destroyed a whole wing of a F-15 and also this bird came home safely.

I doubt that a Tomcat would have survived such battle damages.

A better reliability, better battle damage resistance and a great performace in combat. Thatswhy i vote for the Eagle. But the be honest: the Tomcat looks better ;-)

[Caesar 305]

It was designed to defend the US carrier battle groups against soviet bombers.

 

That was only one of its roles. Talk to anyone who actually designed or worked on the plane during initial concept/design phases and they'll tell you it was meant to be a multi-role platform from the get-go, a dogfighter, long-range interceptor, strike/CAS platform, and recce bird. The strike/CAS was dropped quickly when the Marines backed out and wound up not getting developed for nearly 20 more years.

 

And the swing wings are the weakpoint (not only at the Tomcat, also at the MiG-23 etc.) The swing wing design is heavy and potential dangerous for the pilot. Cracks on the swing wings grounded very often the entire Tomcat fleet.

 

I think Admiral Gilchrist would strongly disagree; in his book on the Tomcat, he refers to the fact that the swing wing was one of the strongest points the Tomcat had, giving it a bigger tactical envelope, and better able to get the best preformance across the spectrum, and better wing loading than any other threat fighter, or teen-series fighter in a combat configuration. I haven't seen any evidence that it was dangerous for the pilot and was in fact the strongest part of the airframe. When the first Tomcat crashed, the wing box was completely preserved, a full 6 feet into the ground. It was in such good condition that Grumman used it for continued tests after digging it out of the ground. Cracks in the swing wings only grounded the fleet once that I can recall (maybe Typhoid can remember others), around 1996, and only for a short period. Around 1976 there was an issue with pilots manually sweeping the wings and having shavings found at the pivots, but this did not ground the fleet, instead it put a 4G limit on the planes until the problem was sorted out.

 

As a dogfighter the F-14 performed not very wellagainst german MiG-29s

 

Considering that the oldest F-14A's got the better of German MiG-29's with VF-14 and VF-41, I don't agree.

 

The design of the Eagle is much more reliable. This plane had an outstanding performance to withstand battle damages.

 

Tomcats had the ability to fly on parts of wings as well. The only instance I've heard of of an F-15 landing with one wing is when an A-4 crashed into the Eagle. An impressive feat, definately, but I also know of an instance of two VF-213 Tomcats crashing into eachother, one lost, the other having more than half its port wing ripped off. It made it back to a land base.

 

I don't see the Eagle as very much more reliable, or survivable, if at all, one of the reasons I won't say one is actually better than the other.

[eraser_tr 29]

Both follow the old mantra of "if it looks right, it is right". Anyway this is like arguing whether John Lennon or Paul McCartney was a better musician. But I'd personally go with a tomcat, just for it's edge in fearsome appearance and sexiness.

[+Dave 2,322]

F-15 Kill Ratio 104 to 0

 

Nuff said.

[Caesar 305]

Very impressive, definately, and awesome at the same time. But that doesn't make the Eagle a better frame. The F-22 has a 0:0 kill/loss ratio, as does the EF-2000, Raphael and Su-35. By kill to loss, every former frame is better than those, but we know that not to be true.

[MigBuster 2,884]

I doubt that a Tomcat would have survived such battle damages.

A better reliability, better battle damage resistance and a great performance in combat.

 

Guessing that something could do this that or the other is not really a fair assessment - besides a missile or cannon shell would kill either if it hits the right place.

If as you say an F-15 lost a wing to a SAM - then it was nothing more than luck. I have some photos of supposed damage to an Iranian F-14A that was hit by an A-A missile that made it back to base "despite extensive damage to both TF-30s"

 

I have photos of a couple of VNAF F-5As surviving SA-7 hits around the engine Nozzles in 1974 that made it back to base - and they look pretty damaged to me, and you would hardly think that was a jet that could take much damage.

[+Dave 2,322]

Have to agree with MB here. How much battle damage plane can take does not make a mark of greatness. That is all luck. Look at the the battle damge a B-24 and a B-17 could take. But yet there is footage of the golden BB blowing them out of the sky.

 

In all fairness, my plane vs your plane is always a moot arguement. Opinions will always get in the way of facts. I miss the F-14. Loved it to death. I love the Albino too. An air force and navy with Turkeys and Eagles is one that is going to ruin the bad guys day everytime. The stats on that do not lie.

 

But....

 

 

Yeah, all you f***ers wish you flew the Viper

Probably since the time you wore a diaper

We got every mission that you do

And we fly 'em all better than you

Yeah, all you f***ers wish you flew the Viper

 

'Cause we're single seat, multi-role

We can fly right up our own asshole

Yeah, all you f***ers wish you flew the Viper

 

 

 

 

Sorry I couldn't resist.

[Caesar 305]

Have to agree with MB here. How much battle damage plane can take does not make a mark of greatness. That is all luck. Look at the the battle damge a B-24 and a B-17 could take. But yet there is footage of the golden BB blowing them out of the sky.

 

In all fairness, my plane vs your plane is always a moot arguement. Opinions will always get in the way of facts. I miss the F-14. Loved it to death. I love the Albino too. An air force and navy with Turkeys and Eagles is one that is going to ruin the bad guys day everytime. The stats on that do not lie.

 

But....

 

 

Yeah, all you f***ers wish you flew the Viper

Probably since the time you wore a diaper

We got every mission that you do

And we fly 'em all better than you

Yeah, all you f***ers wish you flew the Viper

 

'Cause we're single seat, multi-role

We can fly right up our own asshole

Yeah, all you f***ers wish you flew the Viper

 

 

 

 

Sorry I couldn't resist.

 

Agree with Dave - this argument is going nowhere fast, no one here is going to convince the other that one plane is better; some will argue Eagle, others Tomcat, others neither one nore the other.

 

Awesome Dos Gringos use too!

[MigBuster 2,884]

F-15 Kill Ratio 104 to 0

 

Nuff said.

 

I have the figure of 105.5 to 0 for F-15s (F-15C Eagle Units in Combat)- guess some may be disputed (think the 0.5 is the Israel HAWK/F-15 MiG-25RB shootdown)

 

The man with links to Iran claims 159 confirmed kills for the F-14A - and the US Navy got 4 was it Vs Libyan Jets. The 159 figure may be optimistic as a lot were pilot accounts - a truthful Iraqi AF losses sheet would be helpful!!

 

That being said there is apparently firm confirmation that 3 F-14s were lost to Iraqi AF fighters - the Mirage F1 received in the last years of the war is said to have made a significant difference - especially to an F-14 fleet going through 8 years of war with a makeshift spares supply.

Edited August 26, 2009 by MigBuster

[MigBuster 2,884]

Agree with Dave - this argument is going nowhere fast, no one here is going to convince the other that one plane is better; some will argue Eagle, others Tomcat, others neither one nore the other.

 

Awesome Dos Gringos use too!

 

 

totally agree - As all pointless Vs threads - they normally get out of hand too - as long as fact prevails over fiction as much as poss it can still be discussed......maybe.

[Derk 265]

But....

 

 

Yeah, all you f***ers wish you flew the Viper

Probably since the time you wore a diaper

We got every mission that you do

And we fly 'em all better than you

Yeah, all you f***ers wish you flew the Viper

 

'Cause we're single seat, multi-role

We can fly right up our own asshole

Yeah, all you f***ers wish you flew the Viper

 

 

 

 

Sorry I couldn't resist.

 

Can we please have the music with that ?

 

Derk

[JediMaster 451]

Yak-38 FTW!!!!!!

[DWCAce 19]

Edited August 27, 2009 by Rico.