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

[favad]

AOA
My first major post to any site guys .last nite i was watching a movie in it i saw F-14 .the 1st thing which comes to my mind wht is major difference b/w a;lll these fighters (f-14,f-15,f-18) all have almost the same aerodynamic srtructure can any one one tells me wht is mthe moajor difference b/w them a part from naval version export version and american version
ws

[Winter]

They are all quite different actually...Especially visually...Among others...:cat2

After a while you will should to tell them apart quite distinctly...

F/A-18 - Operated by USN, USMC

'The F/A-18 "Hornet" is a supersonic, twin engine, all weather, night, combined fighter and attack aircraft and can be refueled in flight. The F/A-18 multi-mission aircraft can operate from either aircraft carriers or land bases. The F/A-18 fills a variety of roles: air superiority, fighter escort, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, forward air control, close and deep air support, and day and night strike missions.'

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f18comp.gif


F-14 - Operated by USN

'The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place fighter designed to attack and destroy enemy aircraft at night and in all weather conditions....The F-14 employs variable geometry wings to optimize aircraft performance throughout the flight envelope. The multiple tasks of navigation, target acquisition, electronic counter measures (ECM), and weapons firing are divided between the pilot and the radar intercept officer (RIO).'

Specifications (F-14) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f14drwg3.gif)

F-15 - Operated by USAF

'The F-15 Eagle is an all-weather, extremely maneuverable, tactical fighter designed to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat. The Eagle's air superiority is achieved through a mixture of maneuverability and acceleration, range, weapons and avionics. The F-15 has electronic systems and weaponry to detect, acquire, track and attack enemy aircraft while operating in friendly or enemy-controlled airspace. Its weapons and flight control systems are designed so one person can safely and effectively perform air-to-air combat.'

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-15.gif

[Londo Molari]

- F-18 has ROUND engine intakes

- F-14 has swing-wing design

- F-15 is the remaining one :D

[favad]

aoa
what is the logic behind these round engines ? :) i hope it doesnt makes a a/c more efficient but iyt certainly makes a difference in its look .Among the three which one is more Multirole fighter can any one knows the price tag for these birds .and what about there operational ranges (without bein refueled). more over if pak has money whcih one v go for (based on assumptions only).

[favad]

and winter goood logical explanation

[Red aRRow]

Nice post winter.
Can you write something about the F-16 too. :D :D

[Gremlin29]

The difference between engine nacelle shapes (the nacelle is just the fairing that goes around the engine) has more to do with the approach to aeordynamcis of the day, F-15 and F-14 were designed in the late 60's while the F 18 was designed in the 80's. The engines themselves as well as their exhaust are round in cross section.

F-15 is an air superiority plane. It was designed to dogfight and is still the most capable "pure" fighter in the US inventory. In the hands of equal pilots the F-15 will swat other US types out of the sky all day and all night, and in all weather.

F-14 is actually an interceptor. It is not the best dog fighter as far as the airframe is concerned however the Phoenix missile gives it "over the horizon" engagement capabilities that are unique and IIRC unmatched by any other air to air system in the world. I believe the most current design of the Phoenix missle gives it a maximum engagement range of over 110 nautical miles. Where the F-14 lacks in maneuverability it makes up for in weapons systems.

F-18 is a multi-role aircraft and the least capable of the 3. It is by comparison not a very good dog fighter, nor is it a particularly capable attack plane (bomber). It can do both jobs okay, but does not excel at either. The A-6 Intruder it replaced was a better all weather attack plane and the F-18 is a poor substitute IMHO. Likewise the F-18 could not hold it's own against the F-15, F-14 or the F-16. I would say that the Mig 29 and the newer Sukhois would also be superior fighter aircraft to the F-18.

[AnonymousDoe]

Gremlin29,
F/A-18 is most capable of the 3, or why would the U.S.A.F. decommission all the F-15s and F-14s and then build a bounch of F/A-18?

[Gremlin29]

F-18 is not and will not be used by the US Air Force. The US Air Force will replace the F-15 with the F-22 Raptor. Also, the Air Force has never operated the F-14, in any case the F-14 is NOT being replaced by the F-18.

The F-18 is a dual role aircraft. As such it suffers the same fate All dual role aircraft face in that it does not excel at any given task. I am comparing the F-18 to other new types. The F-18 entered service in 1988/9 I believe so it is a relatively new plane. The Navy opted for the F-18 because it could conceivably operate as either a stike aircraft or a fighter. It is however not the best fighter, more than a match for the old Migs (21) it is totally outclassed by the new Migs(29) in the air to air role.

So why was the F-18 chosen? Politics, and bad decission making for one thing. I think the strike pilot community endorsed it because they were trading in their A-6's and A-7's (neither of which were fighter planes) for the F-18. The idea is that F-18 can ingress with a strike package and egress as a fighter aircraft capable of defending itself from enemy aircraft.

Hey the US builds some nice equipment, but sometimes they end up with something that's less than perfect. Osprey is a great example of this!

[Winter]

Note: I'm afraid I can't take credit. I merely compiled it from across the wonderful source the internet is...Though I must acclaim Gremlin's explanation.

Same for the F-16:

'The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multirole fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost, high-performance weapon system for the United States and allied nations.

In an air combat role, the F-16's maneuverability and combat radius (distance it can fly to enter air combat, stay, fight and return) exceed that of all potential threat fighter aircraft. It can locate targets in all weather conditions and detect low flying aircraft in radar ground clutter. In an air-to-surface role, the F-16 can fly more than 500 miles (860 kilometers), deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during non-visual bombing conditions.'

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-16.gif
AnonymousDoe: - The USAF has not decommisioned it's inventory of F-15s, though it plans to, to be replaced by the F/A-22.
- The USAF has never, is not, or will ever operate the F-14.
- The USAF has never, is not, or will ever operate the F/A-18.

[favad]

Aoa
Eid Mubarik All around nice to c so many ppl giving such good comments it is hard to say any thing else but bros i would like to ask one more thing or two i.e is ther any thing common among them also v all know the capabilities of F-18 hornet if v compare f-14 with f-15 (whcih r not in large no at present) r these failed programs? and also if not can any one tell other then USA and KSA which airforce has F-15s and how many squadrans + price tag for these a/c .does israel currently have f-18s what r there performance against f-16s (liitle optimistic i think?)
ws

[Londo Molari]

The F-18 is not THAT bad... its a capable ground attack aircraft, and what it lacks in manouverability, it makes up for in advanced on board systems.

The newest F/A-18 E/F has upgraded engines (also no longer round intake), larger wings, much better radar, avionics and electronic warfair suites.

Although its a mediocre dogfighter, it is superb at beyond visual range combat... it can jamm other BVR missiles rather well, it can fully exploit the AMRAAM missile, and it can carry 10 AMRAAMS!!!!

Also, the F-18, F-14 and F-15 are in no way "failed programs".

The F-14 was rather short lived, and I guess you can say politics played a hand in replacing the Navy's F-14 with the F-18.

But the F-14 was very capable, and the F-18 is also very capable.

[umair]

The F-18 is not THAT bad... its a capable ground attack aircraft, and what it lacks in manouverability, it makes up for in advanced on board systems.

The newest F/A-18 E/F has upgraded engines (also no longer round intake), larger wings, much better radar, avionics and electronic warfair suites.

Although its a mediocre dogfighter, it is superb at beyond visual range combat... it can jamm other BVR missiles rather well, it can fully exploit the AMRAAM missile, and it can carry 10 AMRAAMS!!!!

Also, the F-18, F-14 and F-15 are in no way "failed programs".

The F-14 was rather short lived, and I guess you can say politics played a hand in replacing the Navy's F-14 with the F-18.

But the F-14 was very capable, and the F-18 is also very capable.


Londo is right the F/a 18 E/F version is a highly capable strike fighter.It's total AAM load is 14, greater than that of the Su27. The E version has larger & more widely flared LERXES which give it excellent maneauverability(it's g limits are +9,-2).It's EW suite has an integral ECM jammer and it packs 3 ANLE 53 towed decoys which are capable of jamming both radar guided missiles as well as heaters.It's been equipped to carry tactical ALCMs which increases it's standoff attack capability & survivability.In short the E/F version is a fighter to reckon with. :smokingc:

[favad]

well bro can u tell me how good it is against falcon(f-16s) and if f-16 comes any closer to f-18 i know comparison cant b done but there is some thing whcih could b pulled out of it

[umair]

well bro can u tell me how good it is against falcon(f-16s) and if f-16 comes any closer to f-18 i know comparison cant b done but there is some thing whcih could b pulled out of it

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

[corsair7772]

The F-18, though a capable aircraft is now outclassed by the latest Sukhois such as the SU-35.
It is due to this problem that the "Super Hornet" was developed which is far more advanced than its original versions and is capable of defeating the new Rusiian Aircraft but we can expect a balance of technology here. But one thing, The older versions of the F-18 are not superior to the new Sukhois and Mikoyans.

[favad]

does pakistan have any a/c to counter these threats F-18s specially (for the case if Americans attack us).do v have any thing which can counter these threats .

[Gremlin29]

PAF F-16's are good counter for the F-18.

[Londo Molari]

lol, hilarious.

"If the americans attack us"

If the americans attack us, we are SCREWED. We can't counter at all.

the F-16 is older than the F-18. The F-16A, which Pakistan has can counter old F-18A's, but certainly not the new F-18Es or even F-18Cs. They have superior avionics, radar, jamming and BVR capability.

The JF-17 can probably counter F-18Cs, but the F-18E, with its new AESA radar is very stealthy,and superior to anything Pakistan has.

Ofcourse newer F-16s, like the block 50 and 60, can match the new F-18s, but pakistan doesnt have those.

[rebellious]

Gremlin29,
F/A-18 is most capable of the 3, or why would the U.S.A.F. decommission all the F-15s and F-14s and then build a bounch of F/A-18?

Admin: text deleted. Pls read the forum rules about appropriate behaviour and civility towards other posters.

where did u get that from. the US f-14s and f-18s are ONLY in the navy and the f-15 is in the usaf. and the f-14 was decommisioned cuz mainatainance was too expensive. the f-16 is an economical fighter of the usaf and the f-18 is an economical fighter for the navy, both are multirole. the f-18 cant even reach mach 2!! and it has a small payload. it doesnt have enough range when compared to the tomcat so it cant penetrate deep into enemy terriitroy and get back to the carrier. \
thts y the indians are more interested in the mig29K over the f-18, gremlin is right,

get the facts from formal high ranked naval ppl:
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_2.asp

[Aussie Digger]

The F/A-18 HAS replaced the F-14 in the US navy. There is a Sqn or 2 left of F-14D's, however they are due to be retired by about August 06. At that point, only Iran will still operate them, and their flightworthiness, has to be questionable at best.

Here's what the RAAF thought of the F/A-18 when it compared it to the F-16 in the early 80's:

"The F-18 exhibited no buffet at high AoA with supersonic flight achieved at 80 degrees AoA.

F-16 with its initial rigid fixed stick controller offered little feedback to pilot control inputs and caused digfficulty with slow speed handling in approach configuration when confronted by gusty wind conditions and being loaded with large external stores. Hornet did not suffer this.

With only differential stabilators and spoilers for lateral control, full control deflection gave a slower rate of roll than Hornet.

F-16 engine developmental failures with P&W F100 engines. Afterburner prone to flame out at high altitudes and not at all easy to relight. The F100 did not have a light-off detector that would automatically retard fuel flow to the AB in the event of a flame out. Resultant build up of unburnt fuel and the subsequent relight caused an "unstart".

When entering maximum rate "break turns" from level flight, 180 degrees could be turned before full AB power was achieved. By this stage the aircraft had bled off 200knots in the turn, without the ability to engage full AB sooner. This didn’t happen with the F404 of the Hornet.

Mechanical linkages to the variable inlet guide vanes were difficult to keep adjusted and often wore out due to high levels of accoustic vibration. Engine airflow problems were the norm with early F-16A/B variants.

F-16 used Nickel Cadmium batteries as a back-up to power the internal electrical systems. In the event of an engine failure, the four battery system was prone to failure itself.

The flight control software of the F-16 was designed to instantly reset all control surfaces to the streamlined settings initially engaged. In the case of an abrupt negative 5G bunt (for example), the main generator, back up hydrazine emergency generator and batteries would go offline and result in the electrical fly-by-wire undetecting latent failure in the backup system. Limited diagnostics and an inability to provide power to the emergency generator by other means meant it wasn’t as redundant as the Hornet in its FCS.

Lack of BVR missiles over the Hornet resulted in the RAAF giving the F-16 the arse. The early APG-66 radar was not a continuous wave radar and was unable to integrate BVR weapons. It also had a tendency to lock up on false target indications especially from ground sources.

Penguin was the only anti-ship missile cleared at the time on F-16. Not as useful as Hornet/Harpoon.

F-16 had inferior cackpit ergonomics to Hornet.

Slam engine acceleration on the Hornet was superior to F-16. It took only 3.5 seconds from idle to max AB, whereas it took a woeful five times longer for F-16 to do same!!!

The F-16 was subject to fifth stage AB lock out inside the AB light up envelope boundary.

Initail test showed the F-16 engine performance to be substandard for the RAAF when slam acceleration from a cold-soaked flight idle to full AB at 52,000 feet, 110knots and 38 degrees AoA with half rudder deflection resulted in a near loss of the aircraft from controlled flight. Same example with Hornet produced an effortless test with no loss of control".

Courtesy of Magoo's book, mostly... ;)

The F/A-18 had superior air combat capability over F-16, as well as superior strike capability, and a maritime strike capability with Harpoon, which F-16 STILL does not have. Early Hornet's had superior range and acceleration to F-16, though the F-16 was assessed as a "slightly" better dogfighter.

One area where F-16 DID excel, was in it's cost. Witha larger build quantity and no need to build an airframe capable of being operated from a carrier, plus the limited BVR capability, the F-16 was significantly cheaper.

Subsequent models of both aircraft have improved significantly in all area's. Nearly all early model F-18/F-16's hae been upgraded to an F/A-18C/F-16C level of capability.

F-14's are an excellent interceptor but clearly show their age. Phoenix is no longer relevant as it was withdrawn from USN service years ago (and never sold to Iran). F-14 was never upgraded to carry AMRAAM or late model WVR missiles (such as AIM-9X). As such, with only AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9M AAM's, it'd be at a significant disadvantage against either an F/A-18 OR F-16 in modern air combat. 20 years ago, things would have been different, but not now.

F-15's have been, just about the greatest fighter aircraft ever built. With an air combat record of around 100-nil, it has triumphed against every other combat aircraft it has ever faced. F-15E Strike Eagles are also superb long range tactical strike aircraft. Latest variants, like South Korea's F-15K and Singapore's F-15SG are likely to remain highly capable combat aircraft for a long time to come.

As to what there is in common amongst these aircraft? They are all American designed and built. They are twin engine fighter aircraft, except F-16, which only has a single engine. That's about it. F-14 and F-15 were designed almost exclusively for air combat (but with "latent" bombing capability) F-18 and F-16 were designed as "tier 2" multi-role aircraft, that could conduct air combat missions and strike missions as required. Compromises are made in all aircraft design's, however ALL of these aircraft have served their respective airforces extremely capably and with the exception of the F-14, will do so for many years to come.

[Magoo]

Admin: text deleted. Pls read the forum rules about appropriate behaviour and civility towards other posters.

where did u get that from. the US f-14s and f-18s are ONLY in the navy and the f-15 is in the usaf. and the f-14 was decommisioned cuz mainatainance was too expensive. the f-16 is an economical fighter of the usaf and the f-18 is an economical fighter for the navy, both are multirole. the f-18 cant even reach mach 2!! and it has a small payload. it doesnt have enough range when compared to the tomcat so it cant penetrate deep into enemy terriitroy and get back to the carrier. \
thts y the indians are more interested in the mig29K over the f-18, gremlin is right,

get the facts from formal high ranked naval ppl:
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_2.asp

I'm just wondering why he's getting his panties in a bunch about a post which is more than two and a half years old!

Anyway, the F/A-18 'classic' has at least a third more range than the MiG-29K which is a compromised carrier-borne derivative of an original land-based design. The Hornet was designed for carrier work from day-one, and the Super Hornet which the Indian Air Force (not the Navy) is considering has a third more range than the classic. The MiG-29SMT will probably have a similar endurance to the 'classic'.

Top speeds are irrelevant unless you're setting records or bugging out after punching your weapons AND pylons off. If you hung similar external loads off a MiG-29SMT and a Super Hornet (say 2 aux tanks, 4-6 AAMs, a targeting pod and 2-4 PGMs), they would have similar top speeds (around 1.2 on a good day at altitude, subsonic if hot and/or at sea level), but the Super will still out turn and out range the MiG.

Courtesy of Magoo's book, mostly...

Thanks for the plug AD. Love ya work!

F-14 and F-15 were designed almost exclusively for air combat (but with "latent" bombing capability). F-18 and F-16 were designed as "tier 2" multi-role aircraft, that could conduct air combat missions and strike missions as required. Compromises are made in all aircraft design's, however ALL of these aircraft have served their respective airforces extremely capably and with the exception of the F-14, will do so for many years to come.

The only area where I'd differ with you AD is that the F-16 wasn't designed from the outset as a 'tier II' multi-role, but rather pretty much as a day fighter only. It grew through several block incarnations (15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, and about 140 sub-models!) into a superb multi-role fighter but didn't really match even the earlier Hornets until it reached its CJ/CG Block 40 level. In its latest E/F Block 60 form, the F-16 is probably better than any 'classic' Hornet and not far short of the Block 2 Super Hornet in capability.

Magoo

[Aussie Digger]

I'm just wondering why he's getting his panties in a bunch about a post which is more than two and a half years old!

Thanks for the plug AD. Love ya work!

The only area where I'd differ with you AD is that the F-16 wasn't designed from the outset as a 'tier II' multi-role, but rather pretty much as a day fighter only. It grew through several block incarnations (15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, and about 140 sub-models!) into a superb multi-role fighter but didn't really match even the earlier Hornets until it reached its CJ/CG Block 40 level. In its latest E/F Block 60 form, the F-16 is probably better than any 'classic' Hornet and not far short of the Block 2 Super Hornet in capability.

Magoo

She's right mate. I bought it quite a while back and thoroughly enjoyed it. Speaking of which reminds me, I have to renew my AA subscription soon...

Was the F/A-18A/B really designed as an "all weather" fighter right from the outset, once the design was settled upon after YF-17 was chosen as the Navy fighter, and F-18L, pretty much discarded?

Also, do you know if there is any chance, additional USN/USMC F/A-18A/B "+" or C/D models would be available for purchase or lease by RAAF, if necessary? (Say significant strategic deterioration in our immediate region?) I'm not suggesting any likelyhood of it actually happening, but is the idea feasible?

Curious...

[Pursuit Curve]

She's right mate. I bought it quite a while back and thoroughly enjoyed it. Speaking of which reminds me, I have to renew my AA subscription soon...

Was the F/A-18A/B really designed as an "all weather" fighter right from the outset, once the design was settled upon after YF-17 was chosen as the Navy fighter, and F-18L, pretty much discarded?

Also, do you know if there is any chance, additional USN/USMC F/A-18A/B "+" or C/D models would be available for purchase or lease by RAAF, if necessary? (Say significant strategic deterioration in our immediate region?) I'm not suggesting any likelyhood of it actually happening, but is the idea feasible?

Curious...



If the RAAF Purchases F 18 C + Surplus from the USA does that mean that there is no confidence in the JSF? I firmly believe that would be a good idea.

The development of any new weapon system is costly and protracted these days, and with the amount of airframes that are "Surplus" one could theoretically get an air arm going just by visiting AMARC and talking the yanks into a used car type lease or purchase. All thats missing is a used car lot type sign in neon and a salesman dressed in plaid polyester pants!

This I guess brings another question to the fore. The airframe is meant to carry weapons, and the weapons (JDAM, JSOW, Standoff precision weapons etc) will mean that the realiablity of said airfame is just to get weapons to the area, deliver them, and get back to base. The F 18C would fit that bill brilliantly, the only defitioncy is range, which the USN had issues with when the F 18C Was used in its Carrier Launched Aircraft role.

I know my opinion flies in the face of the F35 lobby, but considering that air threats are usually overated and the primary mission these days is to put heavy metal on ground targets, one does not need new airframes as much as before.

The F 18C+ option is great, and Australia is an unsinkable aircraft carrier, with nice long runways for the Hornet.

Getting back on topic, teh one similiarity between the 14, 15, 16 and 18 was the change in emphasis from defense against bombers and an emphasis on dogfighting capability and maneuverability, advancements in cockpit design, engine power ( F404, GE F100, TF30 etc) and of course all teh composite materials and FBW tech. The teen series, as I call them, also put to rest the ghost of teh airwar over North Vietnam where US fighter design did not lend itself to close in dogfighting, and that was a shock to the USAF, USN Marines.

[norinco89]

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

[Magoo]

Was the F/A-18A/B really designed as an "all weather" fighter right from the outset, once the design was settled upon after YF-17 was chosen as the Navy fighter, and F-18L, pretty much discarded?

While the USAF YF-17 was pitched against the YF-16 for the light weight fighter role, the F/A-18 was pretty much a clean sheet design for the Navy for an all-weather multi-role fighter to replace the A-4, A-6, A-7 and F-4. The F-18L was then a lightened version of the F/A-18A, with a less robust undercarriage, non-folding wings and other deletions. Interestingly, the F-18L would have been a rocketship, with the YF-17s which were later used as F-18L demonstrators showing their ability to supercruise (clean) and climb at 40K/minute.

Also, do you know if there is any chance, additional USN/USMC F/A-18A/B "+" or C/D models would be available for purchase or lease by RAAF, if necessary? (Say significant strategic deterioration in our immediate region?) I'm not suggesting any likelyhood of it actually happening, but is the idea feasible?

The problem with the ex-USN jets is that, if they're in the desert, they're pretty much knackered. Most of the AMARC jets are A models and a few early Cs which would need to be 'HUGged' and then some to fit with our fleet. Most of the later Cs and Ds (with the APG-73 and EPE engines) are scheduled to get centre-barrels and stay with the USN/USMC for another decade until the F-35C is available in numbers.

The only possibility of what you suggest I could see would be if some of the A+ jets were to be released with a few thousand hours of life remaining on their CBs, as these are probably closest in config to our HUGged Hornets (APG-73, AMRAAM, new cockpit displays, CIT, ARC-210).

I guess the other option would be to do what Spain did in the mid-1990s, and acquire 12-24 older airframes and use them for training only. High intensity exercises like FCI training and major exercises etc would still be flown on the HUGged jets, but conversion rides, pax rides, air displays, basic A2G work, fleet support etc could be flown with the older jets, thus spreading the work out across the fleet more, thus extending the HUGged fleet's life of type. It may alleviate the need to do extra CBs.

Magoo

[Occum]

Here's what the RAAF thought of the F/A-18 when it compared it to the F-16 in the early 80's:

"The F-18 exhibited no buffet at high AoA with supersonic flight achieved at 80 degrees AoA...........................

Courtesy of Magoo's book, mostly... ;)

..................The F/A-18 had superior air combat capability over F-16, as well as superior strike capability, and a maritime strike capability with Harpoon, which F-16 STILL does not have. Early Hornet's had superior range and acceleration to F-16, though the F-16 was assessed as a "slightly" better dogfighter........................


This post made for a very interesting reading. What book is this ?

Are there any other reference texts you could recommend that go to this level?

:)

[Pursuit Curve]

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

The range and load carrying capabilities should be superior to the F 16 because of the Naval Fighter requirements of the '18 over the land based capabilities of the '16. That is no surprise. The posts are going on to the 'which is better' route now, and I would like to remind everyone that the aircraft in question were all designed and built at different times, the F 14 entering service first, then the F 15, followed by the F 16 then the F 18. It is only reasonable to see that the F 18 benefited from the experience gathered from the previous three. So, how are they similar? Again they reflect the change in policy for tactical aircraft in the west at that time.

The F 18 in particular was designed to replace the F 4 phantom and the A 7 Corsair in Strike and fighter roles, also economising with single pilot operations vs the 2 place F 4 phantom, and giving a self escort/Strike capability that the A 7 Corsair lacked.

The F 16 has the advantage of egernomic design of the Ejection seat that is reclined to assist the piolt in with satnding 'G', and also incredible thrust to wieght ratio which assists acceleration.

But again it is pointless to run a comparison, except that now all the emphasis is to build one multi purpose airframe instead of having multiple airframes that do the same job but have very different supply and logistical trails, hence the F 35.

So there we are, The lessons learned from teh F 18 MRCA is the root of
the F 35.

Good lord I need a beer after this! :)

[Magoo]

This post made for a very interesting reading. What book is this ?

Are there any other reference texts you could recommend that go to this level?

:)

Well, I'd hate to do a shameless plug... ahh, but what the hell!!! :rolleyes:

It's called Hornets Downunder - Celebrating 20 years of F/A-18 service with the RAAF.

It's available from http://www.ausaviation.com.au

The book goes into great detail about the development of the F/A-18, and there's over 2000 alone words written by one of the RAAF evaluation pilots when he flew the jet in the 1979, 80 and 81. He goes into much detail about the differences between the F/A-18 and the F-16 in those early days.

Actually, to the mods and administrators - can anyone give me an idea on how much it'd be to advertise the book online here at DT? Cheers

Magoo

[umair]

Call it personal bias or what, but having seen and loved nothing more than Vipers since my childhood I can never imagine one being bested by a Hornet.
In our(Pakistan's) case during the 80's we were going for the F-18L before General Dynamics offered us the Falcons and according to PShamim we jumped at the chance to acquire them as according to our evaluation, the Viper beat the Hornet hands down. Then again differrent countries, different forces, different requirements.

[Aussie Digger]

Call it personal bias or what, but having seen and loved nothing more than Vipers since my childhood I can never imagine one being bested by a Hornet.
In our(Pakistan's) case during the 80's we were going for the F-18L before General Dynamics offered us the Falcons and according to PShamim we jumped at the chance to acquire them as according to our evaluation, the Viper beat the Hornet hands down. Then again differrent countries, different forces, different requirements.

True, Australia wanted a BVR capable multi-role fighter that was equally adept at strike and maritime strike missions as it was at A2A. Apparently Pakistan didn't (choosing a non BVR capable fighter)... :D

[umair]

Our's came after you'r Hornets AD and were the block 15S, the ones with the continous wave APG-66 and capable(if provided) of carrying, firing and guiding to targets AIM-7s and AIM-120s.
BTW F-16Cs do have Harpoon capability AD. Ask the Hellenic airforce:D

[Pursuit Curve]

F-14's are an excellent interceptor but clearly show their age. Phoenix is no longer relevant as it was withdrawn from USN service years ago (and never sold to Iran). F-14 was never upgraded to carry AMRAAM or late model WVR missiles (such as AIM-9X). As such, with only AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9M AAM's, it'd be at a significant disadvantage against either an F/A-18 OR F-16 in modern air combat. 20 years ago, things would have been different, but not now.

Actually Aussie, The AIM 54 was sold to Iran, and a few of them are supposed to have scored A2A victories over Iraqi Aircraft in the Iran/Iraq war.

[Salty Dog]

Just had to post this one:

"Two California Highway Patrol Officers were conducting speeding enforcement on I-15, just north of the Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar . One of the officers was using a hand held radar device to check speeding vehicles approaching the crest of a hill.

The officers were suddenly surprised when the radar gun began reading 400 miles per hour. The officer attempted to reset the radar gun, but it would not reset and then turned off.

Just then a deafening roar over the treetops revealed that the radar had in fact locked on to a USMC F/A-18 Hornet which was engaged in a low flying exercise near the location.

Back at the CHP Headquarters the Patrol Captain fired off a complaint to the USMC Base Commander The reply came back in true USMC style:

Thank you for your letter. We can now complete the file on this incident.

You may be interested to know that the tactical computer in the Hornet had detected the presence of, and subsequently locked on to, your hostile radar equipment and automatically sent a jamming signal back to it, which is why it shut down.

Furthermore, an Air-to-Ground missile aboard the fully armed aircraft had also automatically locked on to your equipment location.

Fortunately, the Marine Pilot flying the Hornet recognized the situation for what it was, quickly responded to the missile system alert status and was able to override the automated defense system before the missile was launched to destroy the hostile radar position.

The pilot also suggests you cover your mouths when cussing at them, since the video systems on these jets are very high tech. Sergeant Johnson, the officer holding the radar gun, should get his dentist to check his left rear molar. It appears the filling is loose. Also, the snap is broken on his holster.

Thank you for your concern.

Semper Fi"

[Atilla [TR]]

Phoenix is no longer relevant as it was withdrawn from USN service years ago (and never sold to Iran)..

Wrong iran bought a few but not enough to really take effect.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml

[eckherl]

:onfloorl: Just had to post this one:

"Two California Highway Patrol Officers were conducting speeding enforcement on I-15, just north of the Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar . One of the officers was using a hand held radar device to check speeding vehicles approaching the crest of a hill.

The officers were suddenly surprised when the radar gun began reading 400 miles per hour. The officer attempted to reset the radar gun, but it would not reset and then turned off.

Just then a deafening roar over the treetops revealed that the radar had in fact locked on to a USMC F/A-18 Hornet which was engaged in a low flying exercise near the location.

Back at the CHP Headquarters the Patrol Captain fired off a complaint to the USMC Base Commander The reply came back in true USMC style:

Thank you for your letter. We can now complete the file on this incident.

You may be interested to know that the tactical computer in the Hornet had detected the presence of, and subsequently locked on to, your hostile radar equipment and automatically sent a jamming signal back to it, which is why it shut down.

Furthermore, an Air-to-Ground missile aboard the fully armed aircraft had also automatically locked on to your equipment location.

Fortunately, the Marine Pilot flying the Hornet recognized the situation for what it was, quickly responded to the missile system alert status and was able to override the automated defense system before the missile was launched to destroy the hostile radar position.

The pilot also suggests you cover your mouths when cussing at them, since the video systems on these jets are very high tech. Sergeant Johnson, the officer holding the radar gun, should get his dentist to check his left rear molar. It appears the filling is loose. Also, the snap is broken on his holster.

Thank you for your concern.

Semper Fi"


I would of loved to see the expressions on there faces when that Hornet came buzzing buy, also would of been neat to see the look on that police captains face when he read their response.:onfloorl:

[AegisFC]

Just had to post this one:

"Two California Highway Patrol Officers were conducting speeding enforcement on I-15, just north of the Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar . One of the officers was using a hand held radar device to check speeding vehicles approaching the crest of a hill.

The officers were suddenly surprised when the radar gun began reading 400 miles per hour. The officer attempted to reset the radar gun, but it would not reset and then turned off.

Just then a deafening roar over the treetops revealed that the radar had in fact locked on to a USMC F/A-18 Hornet which was engaged in a low flying exercise near the location.

Back at the CHP Headquarters the Patrol Captain fired off a complaint to the USMC Base Commander The reply came back in true USMC style:

Thank you for your letter. We can now complete the file on this incident.

You may be interested to know that the tactical computer in the Hornet had detected the presence of, and subsequently locked on to, your hostile radar equipment and automatically sent a jamming signal back to it, which is why it shut down.

Furthermore, an Air-to-Ground missile aboard the fully armed aircraft had also automatically locked on to your equipment location.

Fortunately, the Marine Pilot flying the Hornet recognized the situation for what it was, quickly responded to the missile system alert status and was able to override the automated defense system before the missile was launched to destroy the hostile radar position.

The pilot also suggests you cover your mouths when cussing at them, since the video systems on these jets are very high tech. Sergeant Johnson, the officer holding the radar gun, should get his dentist to check his left rear molar. It appears the filling is loose. Also, the snap is broken on his holster.

Thank you for your concern.

Semper Fi"

I'm sorry but this is just a myth.
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/radar.asp

[Atilla [TR]]

I'm sorry but this is just a myth.
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/radar.asp

One of the better myths I have heard. I saw independence day a few days ago and in the movie the USAF was using the F-18 i thought that only the marines and the Navy used F-18 or the the USAF get rid or them in the late 1990's. Then again Aliens never attacked earth did they now?

[crobato]

AOA
My first major post to any site guys .last nite i was watching a movie in it i saw F-14 .the 1st thing which comes to my mind wht is major difference b/w a;lll these fighters (f-14,f-15,f-18) all have almost the same aerodynamic srtructure can any one one tells me wht is mthe moajor difference b/w them a part from naval version export version and american version
ws

Since you are asking a question about aerodynamic structure, the answer is not found with answers that pertain to role: this is so because it was designed for so on.

The only thing common aerodynamically between the three are having vertical tails. But the aerodynamic concepts are generations apart, almost symbolically representing the great leaps and bounds in aerodynamic understanding at the time between the F-14 was designed and by the time the YF-17 was designed.

F-14: Variable Swing wing concept. This comes from the school of design that once thought that the variable wing is an answer to everything from short take off to high speed flight.

F-15 represents the modified or tailed delta wing concept. Its really a delta, with an added tail. Structurally and aerodynamically, the F-15 has all the benefits of a low aspect delta wing, like the sweep for high speed and the long wing root that gives the wings and fuselage great rigidity. Around the time the F-15 was being developed, John Boyd's EM theories became known and began to influence the design.

The F-18 is the most complex of all, even more aerodynamically complex than the F-16. In fact, the aerodynamic concepts of the F-18 is a generation ahead of the F-14 and F-15 in the focus on vortice management. Its one of the few aircraft out there that treats vortex layers like a science and not guesswork, and this is one of the characteristics of a true 4th gen fighter, not a 3.5th gen one.

[Salty Dog]

The F-18 is the most complex of all, even more aerodynamically complex than the F-16. In fact, the aerodynamic concepts of the F-18 is a generation ahead of the F-14 and F-15 in the focus on vortice management. Its one of the few aircraft out there that treats vortex layers like a science and not guesswork, and this is one of the characteristics of a true 4th gen fighter, not a 3.5th gen one.

Excellent observation mate on the F/A-18 vortices management. One of the dominant physical charateristics of the F/A-18 are the wing-body leading edge strakes that extend to the length of the cockpit for vortex management. You will also find these strakes to a lesser extent on the F-16, Mig-29 and Su-27/30/35.

[Lostfleet]

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

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

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

[AegisFC]

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

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

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

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

[Salty Dog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lostfleet]

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

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

[Scorpion82]

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

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

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

[swerve]

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

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

[Lostfleet]

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

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

[TomcatAF]

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

[Todjaeger]

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

Firstly, welcome to the forum.

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

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

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

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

-Cheers

[superhornet]

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


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

[F-15 Eagle]

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

[AegisFC]

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

[МиГ-23МЛД]

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

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

However the aircraft have similarities in the following way

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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