Hey Astro 14 Whats Your Take On This Fighter Plan Comparison?

Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
10,910
Location
OH
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by grampi
What is a Viper 50? I thought the Viper was another name for the F-16...
If you don't know what the Viper Block 50 is, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on fighter airplanes...it's an Air Force airplane, after all...
Were/are F-16s referred to as Vipers? I believe they are...
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
1,790
Location
Las Vegas
The official Air Force nickname for the F-16 is the Fighting Falcon. The unofficial nickname much preferred by the pilots flying it is the Viper. Viper Block 50 isn't an official name but its not much of a stretch to figure out the reference. Aircraft nicknames are a funny business. The A-10's official nickname is the Thunderbolt II. Reference to the P-47 Thunderbolt and not that appropriate. Probably why the unofficial nickname Warthog stuck. Anybody remember the only Air Force "fighter" that never was given an official nickname? Hint: it was a joint Air Force/Navy aircraft that the Navy wisely rejected. It was forced on the Air Force who declined to give it a name.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
1,790
Location
Las Vegas
Yep. McNamara tried to do everything with one plane and it didn't succeed. He made some good decisions, among other things forcing the Air Force to adopt 2 very capable Navy planes, the F-4 and the A-7. Unfortunately, he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was, and he stuck to bad decisions like super glue. The F-111 did come into it's own during the first Gulf War. In a relatively permissive environment after the first few days, it's payload capacity laid waste to Iraqi air bases and hardened hangers with precision guided munitions. Kudos to the Navy for not accepting that airframe and waiting for a real fighter, the Tomcat. Astro and I can agree to disagree on whether its a better dogfighter than the F-15, anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.
 
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
15,683
Location
North Carolina
Originally Posted by Driz
Aardvark I'm guessing.
I think Admiral Connolly said There is not enough thrust in all of christom to make that plane a fighter.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
10,910
Location
OH
Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Yep. McNamara tried to do everything with one plane and it didn't succeed. He made some good decisions, among other things forcing the Air Force to adopt 2 very capable Navy planes, the F-4 and the A-7. Unfortunately, he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was, and he stuck to bad decisions like super glue. The F-111 did come into it's own during the first Gulf War. In a relatively permissive environment after the first few days, it's payload capacity laid waste to Iraqi air bases and hardened hangers with precision guided munitions. Kudos to the Navy for not accepting that airframe and waiting for a real fighter, the Tomcat. Astro and I can agree to disagree on whether its a better dogfighter than the F-15, anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.
I also don't agree the F-14 was a better dogfighter than the F-15...the Tomcat was the biggest and heaviest fighter of all the branches, and that doesn't bode well for the F-14...
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
16,633
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted by grampi
I also don't agree the F-14 was a better dogfighter than the F-15...the Tomcat was the biggest and heaviest fighter of all the branches, and that doesn't bode well for the F-14...
It's amusing to read opinions like this. Like watching two 14 year old boys, who have never even driven a car, debate Porsche vs. Ferrari...cute...but hardly compelling. I've flown fighters. I've fought F-15s from Langley. I've got gun footage of them. The F-14 and F-15 were the high end of fighter design and procurement until the F-22 came along. They were closely matched. Close enough that in a dogfight, it was pilot skill that determined who won. Did you miss the photo above? Two F-15s went up against a single F-14 and got mercilessly beaten. That Tomcat driver knew what he was doing, and pressed his airplane to its full advantage. What "didn't bode well" was the overconfidence of the USAF pilots in going up against a single F-14. A genuine, in depth, discussion on fighter performance would take a book. In fact, if you're interested, I recommend this one: https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599 When it was built, the F-14 had a demanding set of design criteria: Carry the AWG-9 radar and 6 Phoenix missiles to a range of 500 miles from the ship. Be able to fly at Mach 2. Have an internal gun and be able to dogfight. Burn through Russian jamming. Be able to shoot down six bombers simultaneously. Land aboard ship no faster than 130 knots. The F-15 can do two of those: Mach 2 and dogfight. It cannot now, nor could it ever, do any of the other things that the F-14 was built for. Frankly, the Super Hornet can't do them, either. It has an internal gun and can dogfight, but falls short in every other one of those criteria. Grumman looked at building the F-14 with fixed wings, which made it look like an F-15. They lost the range and landing speed, and went back to variable geometry. Here's a brief discussion on that: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a.htm There are some great books on the design and development of the F-14. Here's one of my favorite videos by the lead engineer: https://youtu.be/SsUCixAeZ0A I gave a detailed discussion on F-15 vs. F-14 in my F-14 thread years ago when the question came up, and I encourage anyone interested to go back and read those couple of posts: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5079554/25 TL;DR - The airframes each have unique advantages. Pilot skill matters more than airframe.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
24,363
Location
Central Florida
A redesigned F-14 with improved radar, engines, electronic warfare, conformal fuel tanks, etc... would be nice. I do understand they don't have the budget for this so Super Hornet will have to do.
 
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
15,683
Location
North Carolina
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
A redesigned F-14 with improved radar, engines, electronic warfare, conformal fuel tanks, etc... would be nice. I do understand they don't have the budget for this so Super Hornet will have to do.
Imagine an f-14 with thrust vectoring!
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,467
Location
Danville, Indiana
Until the F-22 came along, the most impressive air show display I ever saw was an F-14 with F-110 engines. What a machine it was! Just as the Pentagon was short sighted in stopping production of the F-22, they were equally short sighted in ending the Tomcat. Not dogging the Super Hornet, but there should be at least 12 advanced, updated Tomcats on each carrier with at least F-110 engines and the biggest baddest AESA radars on them, along with advanced Phoenix missles or a follow-on long range missile. Imagine what an F-14 "EX" with the above features and fly by wire would be like today! Btw, I'd chalk that Iranian F-14 jocky as one [censored] dude. Not only has he probably seen more combat that most other Tomcat drivers, but as mentioned, in conditions to which we'd never subject our aircraft or pilots. On top of all that, he's had to survive the insanity that is the regime in that country. I'd love to get him and his family the [censored] out of there, hear his stories, and then set him up to do a book.
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
16,633
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
A redesigned F-14 with improved radar, engines, electronic warfare, conformal fuel tanks, etc... would be nice. I do understand they don't have the budget for this so Super Hornet will have to do.
In fact, that was Grumman's Super Tomcat 21 proposal in 1991. Increased glove vane area yielding 18,500 # internal fuel. Improved flap/slat system for lower landing speed and better maneuverability. Built in IRST, FLIR, TCS. F-100-129 engines would yield both > 1:1 T/W and super cruise. Best of all, based on the existing airframe, so it wouldn't require re-tooling to manufacture, and existing airplanes could be upgraded. The Berlin Wall has come down. We had just beat Iraq. It was time to cut military funding and realize the "peace dividend". So, it lost out to the inferior-performing, but cheaper to buy, Super Hornet. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...omcat-21-would-have-actually-looked-like
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
16,633
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted by IndyFan
Until the F-22 came along, the most impressive air show display I ever saw was an F-14 with F-110 engines. What a machine it was! Just as the Pentagon was short sighted in stopping production of the F-22, they were equally short sighted in ending the Tomcat. Not dogging the Super Hornet, but there should be at least 12 advanced, updated Tomcats on each carrier with at least F-110 engines and the biggest baddest AESA radars on them, along with advanced Phoenix missles or a follow-on long range missile. Imagine what an F-14 "EX" with the above features and fly by wire would be like today! Btw, I'd chalk that Iranian F-14 jocky as one [censored] dude. Not only has he probably seen more combat that most other Tomcat drivers, but as mentioned, in conditions to which we'd never subject our aircraft or pilots. On top of all that, he's had to survive the insanity that is the regime in that country. I'd love to get him and his family the [censored] out of there, hear his stories, and then set him up to do a book.
The F-14 with the GE engines used to routinely do a move that I've never seen any other airplane do in any airshow, ever: a double, dirty, Immelmann. With gear and flaps down, from the runway, it would do an Immelmann (1/2 loop), roll and do another. That move took tremendous thrust/weight, and great low speed lift. Some of today's airplanes have the thrust/weight, but none have the low speed lift that slotted flaps and flats gave the Tomcat. I doubt you'll ever see another fighter do a double, dirty Immelmann. The Tomcat's other big advantage, and the reason it was such a big fighter, was radar power and antenna size. The AWG-9 (and later APG-71) had far more power out than any conventional radar we've put in a fighter. More than 7 times the wattage of an F/A-18. More than 10 times that of an F-16. More, even, than the F-15. Until AESA, the F-14s Radar was unmatched in power, range, and target discrimination. The jet had a lot of real estate designed in for that original radar, real estate that could be used to house, power, and cool quite an AESA.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
7,723
Location
New England
My only experience with fighter jets was the coolest thing ever witnessed age 9, a real dog fight at beach in Kuwait. The planes banked hard and relatively low at beach line and I say red (bullet) streams from chaser and then heavy smoke with it splashing down. A nearby boat went out. Week later I was in US again(born here) with grandmother. What I witnessed was startsof Iran - Iraq war. Guessing a MIG and maybe F4?
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
1,790
Location
Las Vegas
Originally Posted by IndyFan
...Just as the Pentagon was short sighted in stopping production of the F-22...
There is a complicated process where the Pentagon racks and stacks programs by priorities. All of this can be overriden by Congress, and often is. I'm not sure about the upgraded F-14, but the Pentagon did not make the decision to stop production of the F-22. That decision came from the White House, and the ruling party at the time. Any further comment would get into politics and would be inappropriate on this forum. Because of the high cost of the program, a bipartisan Congress correctly required testing of the F-22 at a higher level than any other weapons system. Production contracts were not let until testing milestones were achieved. There were hatchet men looking for any shortcoming in the airframe. There were none. The decision to cancel, IMO, was a bad one considering the fixed costs already spent developing the plane, and the fixed program costs going forward with such a small number of airframes. On the other hand, extensive production contracts were let for the F-35 before any testing milestones were accomplished. That has proven to be problematic. Same prime contractor so I don't think politics are involved. I'm still scratching my head over that one.
 
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
15,683
Location
North Carolina
Originally Posted by Astro14
The F-14 with the GE engines used to routinely do a move that I've never seen any other airplane do in any airshow, ever: a double, dirty, Immelmann. With gear and flaps down, from the runway, it would do an Immelmann (1/2 loop), roll and do another. That move took tremendous thrust/weight, and great low speed lift. Some of today's airplanes have the thrust/weight, but none have the low speed lift that slotted flaps and flats gave the Tomcat. I doubt you'll ever see another fighter do a double, dirty Immelmann.
Very cool! Low speed to vertical without using already built up speed to go vertical! Is this the maneuver you are referencing? Amazing how fast it accelerates after touching down, at about the 7-8 second mark.
 
Last edited:

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
16,633
Location
Virginia Beach
Yep, that's the one, with the gear down, adding drag. Though the video (shot at Oceana by the looks of it) only showed the first half of the maneuver. A tour de force of low speed lift and thrust to weight.
 
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
15,683
Location
North Carolina
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Can a F-14 or F-15 do a stationary back flip like a F-22? I'd venture to say that the F-22 could do any maneuver a F-14 or F-15 could do, but not vice versa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eiskRcC2ys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlxOL7IaRrE
It has thrust vectoring and the computers control the airframe from the pilots input , which the 1972-74 era jets don't , so probably not. Thats really cool! I don't think any other jet can compete at all with the f-22. But as a question for Astro14. Other than as a show maneuver, in combat, would any fighter want to get that slow and lose energy and become a slow moving target?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
13,189
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by CT8
Air Force pilots don't fly real aircraft . Naval Aviators fly real aircraft. Why are we bringing up Air Force? banana
The Air Force is the ONLY branch that flies real airplanes. All Navy planes are good for is landing on boats...
The only things the Air Force is better than any branch is asking why and serving chow.
 
Top