User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:22:39 AM EDT
[#1]
I think they would skip the J designator as it is already reserved and used by the Japanese version. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:25:33 AM EDT
[#2]
It's possible, I have interest in warbird, but I don't study them to the degree that others here do. I am sure there was a recent upgraded F15 type plane that was being touted as similar flight and weapons performance of the F-22, w/o stealth. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:32:14 AM EDT
[#3]
USAF F-15C's have been flying ACM against the RAF's new toy and getting totally PoWn3D!!!!  Typhoon F1 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:34:28 AM EDT
[#4]
When was this? Although, it should be no surprise, the F-15 was designed in the 60s and first flew thirty two years ago. It would be interesting, however, to compare the performance of their radars. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:36:26 AM EDT
[#5]
It was the F-15XX you are looking for… it offered something like 80% of teh F-22's capability. The USAF was offered a fixed price deal on 380 of them for just the basic development cost of the ATF back in the 90's. The USAF went ballistic and got McD to sack the guy who was responsible. ANdy |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:38:27 AM EDT
[#6]
Currently… lots of ACM being flown against all types. Radar? It's better then the F/A-18 but not as good as the ASEA one in the F-15. There is an ASEA upgrade in the works for the Typhoon. ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:38:34 AM EDT
[#7]
They'll have to skip K as well, Boeing are building a version of the E model for South Korea called the F-15K. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:39:51 AM EDT
[#8]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:40:31 AM EDT
[#9]
You guys over here at red flag or are we going over there? Which F/A-18 radar? The ASEA one? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:42:03 AM EDT
[#10]
All kidding aside, I think Australia should look into either a E or a K version. Seems like it would fit the bill as an F-111 replacement. I think they'd skip the G as well since that's normally reserved for an electronic warfare version. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:44:59 AM EDT
[#11]
I've read that the f-14D with the new engines can take on f-15s Edit: but I know nothing. nothinnnng!! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 6:56:25 AM EDT
[#12]
C'mon, Pudge. I know you're out there reading this...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 7:09:31 AM EDT
[#13]
dport, you might be right. Australia is looking for a new aircraft that will have a clear technology advantage over other aircraft in the region. The front runner candidate has been the F-35, to the point where the Aust govt handed over a bag of cash and signed onto the F-35 development consortium.
With the latest talk from the US that there are people who want to limit the technology of any export versions of the F-35 or make countries rely on the US for a very large proportion of ongoing support for the full tech version, that leaves Aust in a bind. The other likely candidates would be Superbugs since Aust already operates F/A-18's, a version of the F-15E or possibly something from Europe like the Eurofighter, or Rafale or Gripen as outside possibilities (or a version of the Flanker from Russia as an even more remote possibility). Rafale and Gripen are probably too short legged and too small in loadout to merit serious consideration IMO. "Westernising" the Flanker airframe to use US compatible avionics/weapons is possible, but at what price (development time/cost and integration issues. With the electronics SNAFU on Aust's Collins class subs, Aust will be a bit gunshy with the idea of squeezing country A's electronics into country B's airframe)? That limits the list to complete "off the shelf" packages, so it's likely to be a choice of Superbug, piggybacking onto the F-15K production run for Korea or Eurofighter. That's assuming the current talk on technology limiting export F-35's is reliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 7:34:20 AM EDT
[#14]
I asked an F-16 driver this question once. He said:
The F-14D was the fastest, but not the best dogfighter. Eyeball to eyeball it was at a disadvantage. The F-16 was the most maneuverable in the furball fight. The Tomcat had the best long range interceptor missile in the Phoenix. But it was designed for hitting bombers at very long range...not maneuvering fighters. If the Tomcat could get in a shot without the other guy knowing...game over. Not too much chance of that though. The F-15C is the best overall fighter of the three. Knowing what I know about ex-Soviet fighters, I think I might take a MiG-29 with all of its EW toys over any of the American fighters...but then again??? Mostly it is the skill of the pilots that decides the outcome of a dogfight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 8:35:31 AM EDT
[#15]
To paraphrase my father, a USMC Colonel and fighter pilot for over 20 years and 5000+ fighter hours in F4S and F/A18, he has this to say:
F14D = A huge target with a radar that works like crap over land, outdated Phoenix, and cant dogfight worth a shit. F16 = A VERY good dogfighter when its clean (think Thunderbirds). Newest versions are very fast and powerful, with great avionics. Its the only fighter in the inventory that will match an F18A or C model in a dogfight, but only when clean. Hang shit off of an F16, and it becomes an F4 F15C = If it sees you before you see it, you are dead. Highly superior radar compared to the F18A and C (which my father flew). Ok in the dogfight, had lots of power to make the fight vertical. F18A and C = Decent power, not as nice as the F4, but not underpowered. Pulled its nose around faster than anything in our inventory. Good avionics. Since he flew them, a slight bias is there, but he thought the Hornet to be the best balanced aircraft in the inventory. Superhornet = Its a bomb truck, no longer a very good fighter. An F16 or F18A will eat its lunch. Better range, avionics, and power then previous models, however. MiG 29 = Amazing in the knife fight. Its weapon systems close up are deadly. No range, crap radar and long range systems. Anything in our inventory is hard pressed to win up close and personal. Harrier = A joke A to A. Yea, its not really a fighter, but still. F15 strike eagle = Fast, but loses manuverability, and the pilots arent trained for A to A, as much as a F15C pilot is. Easy prey Flame suit on. Like it or not, this is from someone who has been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, and walked the walk. Also keep in mind that this information is 4 years old and older. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 8:42:24 AM EDT
[#16]
 I would love to see an AF pilot try to land on a pitching, rolling deck. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 8:50:55 AM EDT
[#17]
I am not sure the records of either aircraft demonstrate that they are truly excellent air to air fighters, superior to a lot of aircraft currently in operation. For instance, I know for sure that 4 of the 5 aircraft shot down by the F-14 weren't exactly top notch fighters. In 1981, F-14's engaged and downed two Libyan SU-22 Fitters. Not exactly a tough challenge here. And again in 1989, US F-14's shot down two Libyan MiG-23 Floggers. This matchup was a bit closer in terms of aircraft performance but still, the F-14 is superior. The F-14 as far as I know has never been in a tussle with a MiG-29 or an SU-27. I think it would fall short to both.
OTOH, the F-15's record isn't much better. It has far more kills than the F-14. But look at what it's mainly killed.....ancient MiG-21's, MiG-23's, MiG-25's. F-4's were downing Mig-21's in Vietnam. The F-15 did have a few kills over Serbian MiG-29's in 1999. But as far as I know, those are the only engagements either the F-14 or F-15 fought against quality aircraft in the same class. And none of them have been against well trained air forces. Just comparing the F-14 and F-15 head to head, I'd take the F-15. The Phoenix missile was overrated as a dogfight weapon. And in both of the dogfights involving the F-14 against Libya, the aircraft weren't even armed with AIM-54's, just AIM-9's and AIM-7's. Both aircraft were dominate over the competition in the 1970's and most of the 1980's. But with the introduction of the MiG-29 and SU-27, I think that gap was closed in terms of performance. Thus, with well trained pilots, AWACS, etc, I think pilots flying SU-27's (and derivatives) would not be at the disdvantage that some might think when simply looking at overall kill ratios. Over 95% of the kills recorded by both the F-14 and F-15 were against piss poor air forces flying monkey versions of already outdated and lesser quality aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 8:58:48 AM EDT
[#18]
AF pilots are smarter than that, why land on a target? 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 8:59:54 AM EDT
[#19]
If I'm going hunting for enemy fighter jets, I'll take the F-15 over an F-14.
If I'm going to make a movie, cool wall posters, or a photo calendar, I'll take the F-14 over an F-15. NOTHING beats the "cool factor" look of a fighter jet with swing-wings. $0.02, AE |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 9:04:55 AM EDT
[#20]
I guess you don't know that I work on the F-15 for a living like 2A373, my AFSC is also 2A373. I don't need google or Janes to back up my experience on the airframe. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 9:06:58 AM EDT
[#21]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 9:12:16 AM EDT
[#22]
Or Air Force One! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 9:27:10 AM EDT
[#23]
Yeah, and I don't intend this as a flame, but how many USAF pilots are checked out and fully trained in F14's, and vice versa re. Navy pilots in the F15? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 9:28:57 AM EDT
[#24]
An F-15C with the AIM-9X (latest and greatest). No contest.
Oh, there are no F220 or F229 engines. There are the F100-PW-100, F100-PW-220, and F100-PW-229 engines which are all derived from the F100 engine. (-100, -220, -229 would be an acceptable way of abbreviating it, just like 2A373 did on page 1.) There might be some GE F100s out there, but they suck. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 9:49:34 AM EDT
[#25]
Yeah you are correct but you won't find any Crew Chief that walks around saying "Did we get the F100-PW-100/220 mod engines or new F100-PW-220's?" They just shorten it to F-100's, F-200's, or F-229's or just 100's, 220's or 229's. Come on, these are Crew Chiefs we are talking about. Just like when we talk about TO's we don't say. "Hey get me the 1F-15C-2-27JG-40-1 and a TTU-205 Tester." We say "Get me a Mountain Dew, a Snickers, a 27-40-1, and the that fucking piece of shit, 205." Among other things...You got to dumb it down for a Crew Dawg. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 9:58:05 AM EDT
[#26]
I was simply referring to his contention that only AF pilots are skilled. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 10:49:57 AM EDT
[#27]
i thought the 29 was pretty spartan other than the IRST and schlem. (not that these are negligible) outside 10mi, it is at a serious disadvantage, according to the guys i've spoken with, who jokingly liken it to bringing a f-16A to the fight--fantastic with a knife, but this is a gunfight after all. remember, the f4/sparrow was quite lethal in vietnam until the roe changed, and i've heard comparisons drawn between the 21 then and the 29 now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 10:58:51 AM EDT
[#28]
unsurprising. the eagle is a distant 2nd to many fighters in the bfm/acm arena. flankers have been humiliating it for years, and at 400kias, an f16 can eat it alive. but acm alone isn't the determinant for "best fighter". the typhoon may beat it in the swimsuit competition, but there is still the evening gowns and interviews, both of which go to the eagle, at the mo. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 1:30:50 PM EDT
[#29]
You have any pics of a F-14 with Aim-120's?? M.A.T.S. says the program was canceled: The AIM-120 AMRAAM (= Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile) is a medium-range air-to-air missile and should have replaced the F-14's AIM-7 Sparrow. But todays F-14A/B/D do not have the capability to carry and fire the AIM-120 because - even though missile tests were conducted (see below photo) - the integration of the AMRAAM into fleet F-14s was rated as too cost intensive. Thus the program was killed. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 1:41:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Two words:
Maverick & Goose Need we say any more? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 1:44:01 PM EDT
[#31]
Currently using the North Sea ACM range… Non ASEA radar as per Spanish F/A-18's USAF are not upset, having your best friend fielding 230 supremely agile dogfighters is nice to have. ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 1:57:11 PM EDT
[#32]
ALLANJ, I was WRONG. Horribly wrong. I was led astray by an old Navy Fact File. The new ones are correct. The -14 never fielded the AMRAAM.
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 1:58:33 PM EDT
[#33]
Spanish F-18s, OK. I didn't figure the USAF would be upset. Really, if you think about it, it's not in their interests to win right now anyway (Not saying they didn't try.). If they won it would be hard to press Congress for more -22s. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 2:13:48 PM EDT
[#34]
The 'Blue Suiters' could always buy the Typhoon insread of the F-35, it's available right here, right now…  ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 2:15:01 PM EDT
[#35]
Are you crazy? We invented the not invented here syndrome. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 2:16:24 PM EDT
[#36]
Probably should, two engines vs one after all. Plus the F-22 is supposed to kick down the door anyway, does the bomb truck really need to be stealth(y)?
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 2:17:26 PM EDT
[#37]
in their prime, the F-15C could defeat the F-14, but in a dogfight, the F-16 could turn inside both of them. The F-14 had the longest missle range, but the missle's hit percentage was not great at extreme range. By the time the F-15 would be inside the kill zone for a Phoenix missle, the F-15 would be able to shoot something at the F-15
The F-22 could beat them all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 2:40:36 PM EDT
[#38]
That 'bomb truck' can carry a very repectible bomb load…!  4 x Paveway, 4 x AMRAAM, 2 x IRIS-T, 3 x 1000l tanks |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 2:43:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Not too bad, but I was talking about the F-35, you know, the two bomb wonder (perfect replacement for the F117). In order to carry more (unless its SDBs, and it will be) it will have to hang crap on the wing, thus defeating any RF LO features. Might as well have a more maneuverable two engine Typhoon, if only they didn't cost what an F-22 does, that is. 
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 2:49:47 PM EDT
[#40]
I like the F14.
Max |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 3:10:02 PM EDT
[#41]
And if you buy the F-35B they shrunk the bomb bay so even a decent sized bomb in the internal bay is a no-no… RAF are not too pleased, they have developed a hard on for 1,000 & 2,000lb Paveways. The flyaway price for a 'production' Typhoon is not too harsh, @$90mil, probably about the same as an F-35 will actually cost ANdy |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 3:11:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Back after dinner tag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 4:15:50 PM EDT
[#43]
Because the F-14 was only exported to Iran. Because the USAF was involved in more "shooting wars" than the Navy was. Because the F-14 was built to be an INTERCEPTOR, to protect the carriers from waves of Russian bombers where the F-15 was built to go toe-to-toe with the commies.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 4:20:29 PM EDT
[#44]
9mm vs .45ACP
AR vs AK 1911 vs. Glock Looks like we just might have a new addition! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 4:21:44 PM EDT
[#45]
There are still the letters F, G, H and I before the letter J would even come into play. 
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 4:26:20 PM EDT
[#46]
Come to NAS Whidbey Island, I can introduce you to at least two of them. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 4:30:47 PM EDT
[#47]
My father was an f-15 eagle fighter pilot in NATO, he has said many times that in dogfights with f-14s, the f15 will always win unless the pilot is retarded. That said, a good pilot in an f16 will beat a similarly skilled pilot in an f15 in a dogfight between only those two, despite the sophistication of the f15 the f16 is just slightly more maneuverable to win. The f16 is more unstable, and thus more maneuverable. As for the f14s, they are actually an even more dated design, plus all that gear for deploying them off ships weighs them down alot. The f18 is a far superior aircraft to the f14 for all of its roles.
People love the f14 because of its popular appeal; it has nifty wings that sweep back and it was in top gun. The f15 is actually a far superior aircraft in all areas. An interesting story about the f15, I saw an israeli pilot who crashed into an enemy aircraft in the air, disintegrated the enemy, and flew back to base after recovering from a spin. When he landed, everyone was in disbelief; he had flown all the way back with the left wing ripped off at the fuselauge. It was so stable it could fly all the way back without even a small shred of the left wing. Besides, I feel that the fighter pilot is a dying breed, that f22s will never see real combat for a long time because people don't even bother sending airforces against us right now, and that unmanned drones such as the predator will take over because they are economic and save lives, and are actually very effective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 4:31:48 PM EDT
[#48]
Are those the same highly skilled USAF pilots that managed to shoot down to US Army Blackhawks in 94?  Link
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 4:38:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Not true, people have some stupid idea that any time you shoot a missile, it kills the target aircraft. You've all watched too much Top-Gun. The AIM-54 series was not designed to shoot down fighters, it was designed to shoot down slow and stupid medium bombers. It's not a very maneuverable missile, and its guidance system is decades out of date. The AIM-120 AMRAAM may have a shorter range, but it has a much better guidance system, and is much more maneuverable. An AIM-54 fired at an F-15C/D/E would have very low odds of actually getting anywhere near the target aircraft. The modern F-15 has pretty good countermeasures and the AIM-54 is about two decades behind on counter-countermeasures. The F-15 would just have to spend a little time dancing, and the AIM-54s wouldn't be a problem. The F-14 can only carry six AIM-54s... And the odds of any of them damaging the F-15 are low. An AIM-120 against an F-14, on the other hand, is a different story. The AIM-120C/D is the state of the art in guidance systems, and has the best counter-countermeasures of any air-launched radar guided missile at this time. The F-14 however, is about a decade behind on countermeasures. The odds of the F-14 being hit are pretty high, and the warhead is big enough to ruin an F-14s day. A good pilot might be able to work some magic and dodge one or two, but the F-15 can carry eight AIM-120s... Frankly things are pretty damn hopeless for the F-14 in this battle, unless the F-14 can pull a slick trick, like hiding behind a big damn mountain. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2006 4:42:20 PM EDT
[#50]
Give me an A4-M with a F404-GE-100D with afterburners, an F-18E avionics package and radar and a mix of AIM-120's and AIM-9's and and a good pilot and I'll clean house.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
