Someone told me on the internet that the F-18 was more versatile than the F-15E to which I say bull! This young man who told me this obviously is incorrect as far as I am concerned.
The only way the F-18 is more “versatile” is it’s ability to land on a carrier and be deployed anywhere in the world whereas the F-15E would have to refuell with a KC-135 to get around the world.
Without researching it I think the F-15E has a better rate of climb, more powerful engines, a heavier bomb load, better radar and it can fly back to base with one wing missing as the Israeli’s showed us that!
Are my assumptions above correct? And please be subjective whether you like one aircraft more than the other. [;)]
This is one of those debates that could get 100 different opinions from 100 different people.
I will say this though:
The F/A-18 can and has engaged, then shot down another aircraft, and dropped bombs on a target all on the same mission.
The F-15 has yet to accomplish this…so yes, the F/A-18 can ‘technically’ be said to be the more versatile of the two, especially when you take into consideration the actual meaning of the word “versatile”.
Strike Eagle - all day long / hands down / no questions.
While the Strike Eagle may be a air superiority fighter modified into a ground attack / strike fighter, it is still a superior aircraft to the “multi role” Super Hornet.
The F-15 was designed with the ethos of being the best of it type & was for a long time the superior air superiority fighter - it still maintains 99% of this capability, with additional strike capability.
On performance the F-15E eats the F-18F with much more power & larger wing area, although the F-18F does have the flexibility of operating from carriers!
I am not sure on the tight in / dogfight performance comparison of these aircraft, the F-15 has the power & flying surface, but the F-18F may suffer less from AOA limitations ??
I am also not sure on the radar fit, the APG-79 as fitted to the latter F-18F is more advanced than the APG-70 of the F-15E, but is apparently suffering from some pretty serious software issues - which I suppose time will sort out though ??
The F-15E is still the horse I would be choosing to ride though.
What makes it more versatile then Dave? All things considered I do not see how it is more versatile. How am I confusing capability with versatility? I don’t see the relation.
Both are capable aircraft but all things considered I still say the F-15E is more versatile as it excels in all the categories I listed except for maybe radar which I am not sure of.
Just because the F-18F has seen action that included more roles in one mission than the F-15E may have that does not preclude that it is more versatile. It only shows that it had a chance to prove it’s own versatility, not that it is superior to the versatility of the F-15E. [2c]
They are both built by the same company so why argue. Both have multirole capabilities, the F-15 has more A-A kills and has probably dropped more tonnage in combat since its inception. The F-18 likes it low and fast whereas the F-15 prefers to fly high and fast. In the middle they are close to equal.
Lets not forget, it isn’t just the aircrafts performance that counts, but the Mk I pilot in the seat flying it. All of those who fly either are damn good or they wouldn’t be doing so.
In the air to air roll, the F-15E will eat the F-18F for lunch. In the air to ground roll, both are pretty equal. The F-15E can carry more of a payload and carry it a longer distance. The F-18F is short legged and is limited to how far it can fly. It can increase its range by reducing its bomb load. The F-15 has almost twice the range as the Super Bug carrying a compatable load.
True Gerald but the question was one of versatility not pilot skill.
I like the F-18 Super Bug a lot but the F-15E Strike Eagle is still my favorite and I think this debate proves part of why I love it so much. It is arguably the best fighter in the U.S. arsenal and that is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of many experts.
Yes, when the F-15E can launch from an aircraft carrier and refuel another F-15E launched from the same carrier, then you can say it is more versatile than the F/A-18F.
Well an F-15 can shoot down satelites in orbit![#toast]
As far as ECM, an F-15 can carry ECM pods too. If your talking about the EF-18 Growler, well if the AF was looking for a replacement for the EF-111, I’m willing to bet the AF would consider using the F-15 for that purpose.
well, this is all just my opinion, but I will try to support it with some facts.
First, the Super Bug is a more versatile platform. The Strike Eagle is designed for air to mud, but can still fight in the air. The Hornet can fight in the air, drop bombs, conduct air-to-air refueling, drop leaflets, fly photo-recon missions, and now with the new EA-18 variant, it can also fly electronic warfare missions too. Hands down, the Super Bug wins versatility.
Someone mentioned engines. This is really not a good indicator of anything. The Eagle has more powerful engines, but it also has a max takeoff weight of 15,000 pounds more than the Hornet. Of course, the F-15E has a higher top speed, but that is seldom used in today’s combat.
The radar and electronics are generally better in the 18. This is only because the Strike Eagle is an older plane than the Super Bug is. The upcoming radar refit for the Strike Eagles is to use the same radar as on the F-18F. But at least for now, the -18 has the edge here.
The Strike Eagle has a fly-by-wire system, but it works WITH the hydraulic control system. The Hornet has replaced the old hydraulic system entirely with fly by wire quaduple redundant computers.
Strike Eagle definitely has better range as well. But remember, these are not comparable planes. The Hornet is a multi-role fleet aircraft. The Strike Eagle was designed for one mission–the deep-penetrate strike. This is the role that the F-111 used to fill.
No, not the same at all. Every fighter in the US inventory can carry the same ECM pod that the Strike Eagle can carry. That is a pod that is used to protect the aircraft carrying it. That is not at all the same as being an electronic warfare platform that is designed to fly in with a strike force and protect that strike force. The one and only ECM pod that the -15E can carry is the AN/ALQ-131 Self Protection ECM pod.
Oh, and the F-15E cannot shoot down a satellite. The ASAT program was cancelled in 1988, the same year that the first production F-15E was put into service.
Good discussion. I have enjoyed reading your thoughts. I wish I had a constructive comment, but I only worked on the F-15 C/D models, never the Strike Eagle.
I think something that has been overlooked here is that the needs of the airforce vs. the navy are very diffrent and i’m not sure that you can “fairly” compair the versitility of the two aircraft. The most imporant thing to remember about the navy is that they’ve only got so much room on the carrier. So an aircraft like the F-18 is ideal for them. Out of one airframe you’ve got your fighter, your strike, your refueler, your electronics warfair, and soon your antisubmarine missions all covered. The airforce doesn’t need for the strike eagle to be a refueler, or an electronic warfair platform, so you really can’t compair the two on these points. Likewise why would the airforce need to find and kill submarines (that’s what the navy’s for [;)]). So that too we can’t really compair. The only two roles we can compair the two on are the air to air and air to ground abilities. And if we are talking purely on versitility then they are both really the same. At the end of the day they are each the best aircraft in our inventory for their respective branches. Yes i believe the navy traded some performance in favor of a platform that could fill more roles, the airforce not constriced by the limits of the flight deck has the better fighter, and maybe the better strike aircraft.
