[#ditto] The Bug/Super Bug was designed from the start as a carrier-borne aircraft and therefore never needed to have long legs. The Strike Eagle will get down in the dirt as well were they actually prefferred to be, not high. It was much better for the Strike Eagle in the wagonruts than the Bug, the Strike Eagle has terrain-following radar which can be coupled to the autopilot for ‘hands-off’ low level flying. Does the Super Bug have that? Don’t think so. I used to work on them so kind of biased, but still hands down my choice regardless.
The only way to have the F15 come out on top in a VERSATILE comparison is change the adjective- versatile to= superiority aircraft.
Bottom line…versatile… the F18 can cat and back, the f15 can’t.
Let’s remember that Capability = Versatility. The more things an aircraft is capable of doing, the more versitile it is.
If the F15E cannot land on a carrier, why does it have a tail hook?
All F15s were wired to carry air to ground ordnance and still are but the a/b/c did not have the software fitted to performe this mission.
The F15E is a fighter that has been modified to perform a primary attack role. Not the other way around. On an air superiority mission I’ll take an F15E loaded for bear with AAMs over an F18 every time. It can fly farther, longer, higher, faster, heavier and look cooler doing it. I think it’s pretty obvious that the F18 has the advantage in a close, guns only, traditional dog fight.
The F-15 is still capable of shooting down a satelite. The aircraft are still wired for the missile and therefore can still perform the mission. If the program is still active or not is not the point.
Getting a kill after a bomb run doesn’t make you versatile, it makes you lucky. B-17, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32 got kills before, during, and after bomb runs. I wouldn’t call them versatile. I am not saying that the Hornet is not because it is. This was just an example of right place, right time.
Show me an F18 that can do a Viking Departure.
Andrew
OK,
IS the F15 capable of taking off from an aircraft carrier?
The blues do a nice show in the bug.
That hook is for arrested landings at AF fields equiped with a catch line/lines CK.
I’m done.
Actually, the Hornet was originally designed by Northrop as the YF-17 to compeet with the General Dynamics YF-16 in a USAF contest for an ACF light fighter. So it was originally designed to a USAF specification, not as a carrier aircraft. It was modified by McDonnell Douglas for carrier use and the Navy held trials for it’s new ACF and picked the Hornet.
Andrew
Don’t forget F-15’s are prone to snapping in half. 
But even with that said. I would choose the F-15. I watched an F-22 and a F-15 go after each other from my back porch and it was impressive.
F-111 PIGS RULE!!![}:)]
If I had the fantasy flightline, and I knew how to fly, I’d take the EE Lightning up for a spin.
First introduced in 1959, it has the same rate of climb, the same top speed and only slightly more wing loading than your precious Eagle. It’s Avons have the same thrust in afterburner as those big Pratts in the -15.
One hot aircraft.
I’m going to be the spoil sport here and say that, I doubt anybody here can say for sure which would be better at an air combat duel, unless they worked for DoD or Boeing (or test flighted both). Although it should be noted the Strike Eagle does have a huge benefit because its a land based fighter over the carrier based one. The F/A-18E/F is likely a more stealthy design however.
There is one major benefit for the Rhino which few people realize; it was designed during the late 1990s to be highly upgradable over its service life. In the 1990s people realized that electronics were the next generation of warfare; the Revolution of Military Affairs as it was called. Fighters from the 1980s didn’t have this benefit, their design was more static compared to their successors. From its outset, the F/A-18E/F was intended to “grow,” and adopt new technologies and roles. That includes major modifications like the EA-18G Growler as well as smaller spirals that introduce alterations to almost all the major systems. one example is upgrading of the ALQ-165 defense system (a fairly standard 1990s system) with the far more developed ALQ-214. Its avionics architecture can be easily altered to add new capabilities and the like. These incremental updates are critical for survivability and versatility and can’t be underestimated.
This has happened on exactly one occasion, the opening day of Desert Storm and was F/A-18Cs, not the E/F. In the nearly 20 years of combat ops since then the only other plane that may come close are some F-16s over the Balkans during the 1999 Kosovo campaign. The F-15E has yet to be challenged in the air air to show if it has this capability or not.
going back to the original question, as Dave Roof correctly points out that the F-18 is more versatile than the F-15, but the F-15 is by way & far the more capable than the F-18.
With regards to the F-18 being more available & flexible as it is on a mobile airfield - this is only true if the mobile airfield is in the correct place at the correct time!
I say in an ideal world - stuff versatility!!! Versatility is what has taken us from a carrier deck covered with such airborne miracles as the F-4, F-8, F-14, A-4, A-6, A-7, EA-6B, RA-5C, S-3 & a couple of twin props… to the F-18 & a couple of twin props - as an aircraft lover I know which I would choose (ideal world, budgets aside).
Where as most of us have had the luxury of being able to see, hear & read about all these amazing aircraft while still a reality, future generations are going to have to suffer the massacre & watch a couple of “versatile” A/C. Give it a few decades & the variation of combat aircraft in our skies is going to be an F-18/F-35 alike, the US only F-22, a possible a euro consortium multirole, possible a couple of Russian multiroles, possibly a multirole Swede & possibly a multirole from China (not that anyone will see it) - that is 3 > 7 hardcore combat A/C (go back a few decades & there was more variation on the average US carrier deck)? At the moment we have the luxury of having a few overdue for retirement “oldies” still flying, but the continual upgrades wont allow them to resist the gate guard post forever.
Versatility = bad day for the A/C enthusiast = more profit for the A/C manufacturer (how many are left).
Bondo - correct on the EE lightning, supercruise in service 46 years before the “holy grail”!
Two things–
The tail hook is for the MOREST system, it’s a safety measure. USAF fields have an arresting cable on the runways. This is to stop the plane for a safe landing if there are mechanical difficulties, weather problems, or battle damage. The F-15 has not even been flown from a carrier, as it was never designed to do it and doesnt have any capability to be hooked to a catapult.
Second, F-15’s CANNOT still shoot down a satellite. The ASAT program was only applied to 20 modified F-15A’s, not to the entire fleet, and certainly not to the F-15E. No other F-15’s were ever capable of launching that missile.
GO AIR FORCE BEAT NAVY!!!
Where I got my information was from a F-15 instructor pilot stationed at Tyndall. He flew the F-15C in combat, the F-15E in Alaska and now is an IP at Tyndall. In the DACT roll against the F-18E/F he has always come out the winner. The only advantage the F-18 has over the F-15 is it is able to maintain a higher AOA over a longer period of time. That will only work if you are close enough to read the name tag on the pilot. A good pilot can over come that advantage if he is prepared to counter act.
The big advantage my neighbor has is he has over 3,000 hours in the F-15 and can make it do anything it was designed to do. The only aircraft he can’t beat with the F-15 is the F-22. He also told me that flying against the F-16, the outcome depends on pilot skill. He only wins about two thirds of the fights in DACT flying against the F-16.
The F-15 would have to land on a carrier before it could fly from one. I would imagine that it would be wiser to land an F-15 gear up on a carrier to save the landing gear being wrecked & pushed through the fuse, that is before the emergency hook was ripped out of its ass & before it slid seawards over the bow in an expensive fireball.
Neither the hook, gear or structure of the F-15 are suitable - check the pics. Still prefer the F-15 though!
Front F-15 + F-18;
Rear F-15 + F-18;
The reason the F-18 nose gear is beefed up is for Cat launch. A F-15 could land on a carrier and the LDG could take the stress. The tail hook could also take the stress as I am sure many F-15 have made hot landings and engaged the barrier cable. The F-15 has the power to make a take off from a carrier but not a cat launch as it has no attachment on its gear for a hookup. A Cat launch would rip the nose gear off of a F-15. Clear the deck, give it enough room to get up to speed and it could get off of a carrier.
Berny,
Could the F-15s gear really take a hard carrier landing - if it could, how many would it survive. I understand the point on the front gear because of the load on it from the cat, but is the rear gear sturdy enough & dampened enough to take the load & to stop it well & truly “bottoming out”?
Would the F-15s hook really be capable of taking the strain of F-15 touching the deck at power to a standstill in a couple of seconds? Its just hard to imagine an F-15 surviving a no flare, hard & full power on contact landing.
I dont dispute what you say, I am just interested.
[:O]OMG THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPRESSIVE!!! WELL!!! WHO WON!!![%-)]
F-15s are not ‘prone’ to breaking in half as mentioned by someone before. I only ever saw one that way, and that was only because a mechanical main gear rotation link broke on landing. The offending strut snapped to a 90 degree perpindicular position to the runway and flung the aircraft off the runway. The aftermath had snapped the forward fuse just aft of the cockpits. Obviously the weak point that saved the pilots, but by no means are they ‘prone’ to breaking up.
It couldn’t do it day in and day out, but yes it could make a carrier landing and survive. The hook is strong enough to take the shock and the gear could also take the shock of a carrier landing. I have seen some F-15’s land on a hard runway and slam down so hard I thought it would drive the gear through the top of the fuselage. Not all runway landing are soft and I am sure more than one F-15 has slammed down on a runway. A carrier landing would be nothing more than a F-15 making a barrier landing. When making an emergency landing using the barrier the F-15 comes in hot and fast and does it all the time.
From the Wikipedia article on the F15:
So maybe not ‘prone’ but it’s happened and it’s a concern. There is no corresponding defect section on the F18.