F14 vs F18

Modeling Subjects Aircraft
21

With the exception of the Israelis, we seem to have the lock on well trained pilots. The Russians have pilots, of course, but not nearly as well trained from what I’ve read, and they dont’ really have the money to keep the planes well maintained, not to mention the money to have so many of them up in the air all the time for training. If it came down to a real contest against a modern country with a real airforce, I bet we’d have superiority pdq, not as quickly as we did against Iraq, but pretty quickly nonethelss.

Just my .02.

madda

22

What happened in Aug of 1990? Hussein invaded Kuwait and who did the U.S. Military send to defend the entire region? The First Fighter Wing from Langley AFB. and they fly F-15s!! The first on the ground about 5 days later. Followed by the 82nd Airborne.
Wroper11

23

Wroper11, First of all, nothing against the Fly boys. They have there purpose. But I must give a small story to set them in perspective…

While on deployment in 2000, my carrier group was participating in Operation Southern Watch. 2 F-16’s were sent in to patrol the airspace, when they suddenly came roaring out, tails between their stabilizers. It seems that Uncle Saddam had taken a potshot at them, and they were frantically requesting that we, the Navy, do something about it. Without further ado, we launched a couple of F-18’s to take out the SAM site, which they did, so that the Air Force could go play in the sandbox again.

That said, back to the topic. Having worked around both aircraft, I tend to lean toward the F-14’s for several reasons. They have higher survivability, higher payloads, longer range (they don’t need to be refueled immediately after take-off) and just look so much cooler than the Hornets. Don’t get me wrong, the Hornets are fine. But if you’re going to war, what would you rather have: a popgun or Howitzer? Besides, you don’t see F-18’s in Top Gun, do you?

demono69

24

Most of our close allies have their pilots spend lots of time training with ours and attending our advanced training schools. As far as the Russians go, besides the training issues their fighting doctrine differed significantly. They were/are much more dependent on guidance and operational control from ground command than our pilots, who have somewhat more autonomy and spend much more time preparing for air/air combat.

25

Without knowing the details of the F-16 flight’s mission, it would be hard to comment. For one, if they were configured for CAP rather than ground attack they wouldn’t be able to counter a ground-based threat. The Tomcats may have been the nearest asset able to deal with the threat.

FYI - It is the Air Force, not the Navy that is tasked with the primary SAM suppression mission - maybe the term Wild Weasels rings a bell?

26

Could not have said it better myself N2OBY. Air Force all the way[;)].
Right now two of my cousins are flying over in the Gulf w/ there lawn darts I mean 16’s.
Sorry could not resist[:p]. The 16 is in my blood and was a blast to crawl around[8D]Flaps up, Mike

27

Have you seen a Russian pilot perform the “Cobra”? Incredible manouver that they invented, and we don’t even have a plane that can do it.

The first ones sent because the NAVY was already there![:D]

28

Yes, I’ve seen it. And I’m still trying to figure out what good it would do him in a fight. I’m not sure why anyone in their right mind would want to be that slow in a fight.

29

If performed at the right time it would make a missle miss (I don’t care what hollywood says, missiles don’t change direction well) but it’s original intent was to allow for a snap shot at an aircraft that is above. I don’t necessarily agree with the tactical soundness of this theory but it takes a skilled pilot and a good A/C to pull “Cobra” off.
Even though the manouver can be performed at higher speeds than air shows it does bleed off a lot of speed and I certainly wouldn’t want to be that slow within gun range.[:p]

30

So would a notch [:D] Not to be argumentative so I hope I’m coming off that way - just a fun discussion! [^]

Precisely. That’s not an energy state I would want to have!! [:0]

31

I will admit, the first bombs dropped in the First Gulf War were by the Air Force, an F-117 if I’m not mistaken. Also, the 16’s would have to be configured for possible ground attack roles, as that’s what most of Operation Southern Watch was. We almost never received hostile fire from aircraft, it was always SAM sites or anti-aircraft fire.

Don’t get me wrong, boys. The 16 is a beautiful bird. As a former squid, though, I have to keep the fight for all the sailors out there poking holes in the water for our country.

demono69

32

Not at all I like a lively discussion.

I do remember seeing a clip of the cobra move and i am still not sure if it was an accident but he completely back-flipped the aircraft an came out at the original alt and heading, he was GOOD or LUCKY.

33

Same here! When it comes down to it, we’re all obviously on the same team - but it sure is fun to keep the old inter-service rivalries alive…

Besides, as the youngest service blue-suiters have always had to remind the other branches that we’re more than worthy of their respect; often by citing the times we’ve saved their butts!

I’ll buy a swabbie a drink anytime…

34

You do have to admit that the “fly boys” usually don’t have to worry about having to come home by landing on a 1/4 mile long strech of “moving” runway in pitch dark weather…

35

Exactly. Try landing a bird with one engine out on a landing strip the size of a postage stamp, while it’s moving!

36

The F-14 is the best Navy fighter. It’s one cool
cat.[8D] Airspeed is great , a real lifesaver. It’s even
better combined with the right altitude.[:D]
fuzzy

37

And so the debate has spilled over to other makes…

I wonder why the -15 and -16 have tailhooks? Its not like the crews can slam those birds onto a metal runway. [:p]

Go Tomcat!!![;)]

38

Those tailhooks are for emergency “hot” landings.
Military airfields have arresting gear they can set up on runways for that purpose.

Hey, does anyone know if Lt. Pete Mitchell is still flying around in those Tomcats? Or did he buzz that tower once too many times?

39

Well I’ll give it to ya, Merlin aka “Tim” (Robbins, that is). You got me. Was tyring to do a “Maverick Move.” [:D][:D][:D]

40

I would think the only real complaint one could have about the Tomcat is from the economic standpoint.

Beauty that she is, it can’t be ignored that she was designed back when they could get away with designing an aircraft around the “one trick pony” idea. Give it one job to do to excellence and built something else to do other singular jobs to an equal level of excellence (Intruder and Corsair II in the surface attack specialties for example) You wouldn’t take an Intruder or a SLUFF air to air and I imagine there was a fair amount of trepidation in the creation of the Bombcat in as much as how survivable an air to air specialist machine would be at the lower altitudes needed for accurate bomb placement on targets.

For a Tomcat, you have the extra cost of training a weapons specialist to ride in the backseat, while the Hornet has one crew member and a computer to handle a lot of the weapons.

The Hornet was built adaptable to various missions so there was no extensive re-engineering to do to get it to take on other duties. To my understanding, the revisions to the avionics and weapons control systems to turn Tomcat into Bombcat were very extensive and expensive.

One thing I notice at every airshow I go to where both Hornets and Tomcats are present in the static park, is what’s under the Tomcat that isn’t under the Hornet: puddles of fuel and possibly other fluids. I’ve never seen a Tomcat on the ground that didn’t have fresh stains on the tarmac under it or some sort of drip catching tray under it. I’ve yet to see a Hornet leak to the point that you’d notice it. Eventually all that leaking has to show up in the economics somewhere.

I was at an airshow in 2000 and there was a Tomcat in the static park that had about half a dozen drip trays under it. The leaking got so bad that tyhey had to tow it, leaking all the way, out of the static park and away from the crowd. The stuck it somewhere where we could still see it and within 20 minutes of standing in that one spot, it had leaked a pool of fuel in about 20 feet in every direction out from it.

Now that certainly was abnormal and extreme leakage, but I’ve never seen a hornet loose its bladder control like that.

The Tomcat, sadly comes from a largely bygone era of thouroughbred, single purpose aircraft that today’s economic environment can’t realistically support.

The Tomcat’s fast and has one job, the hornet is slower, but more is expected of it in tasking than ever was of the Tomcat.

My initial point from the last page stands: the comparison is a moot point, its not realistic to compare them in mission profiles as they come from two different ideals in aircraft design, two different generations of combat aircraft, and entirely different economic considerations governed their respective developments.

How can you fairly compare such disparate machines?