I garuntee that an F-15 could get off a clear deck of a modern super carrier without a cat launch! It might dip off the bow, but it would do it! After a 1000+ ft roll at full AB it would be pretty d*** close to flying speed!!
Actually a F-15 did break in half inflight. It broke just aft of the cockpit during a DACT mission. Because of that all F-15A/B/C/D aircraft were grounded until an inspection for cracks could be performed. Several aircraft were found with cracks and a DEPOT team was sent in for repair of the aircraft. The more hours on the aircraft the more chance of cracks forming go up. Older aircraft have restrictions placed on them and that is why the retirement of the F-15 was speeded up. Tyndall AFB will loose all of their F-15 early next year and at nearby Eglin AFB has retired all of their F-15’s.
[BH]
The basic airframe of the F15 has NEVER EVER been shot down by another aircraft. The basic design of the wings alone lead it into the airstrike capability. Yet when striped down it can do very well against any plane on this planet except maybe the F22. You can’t say that for the F18 airframe. Sure it would do well, but no where close to the F15. Might add here that the F15 is probably the last plane built (unless it might be the SU27) that can sustain acceleration in a vertical climb. To be exact the F15 with a 300 yard roll out is faster to 100,000 feet than the Apollo Moon Rocket! It was untill the advent of the F22; the US military’s premier CAP fighter. How good it is in the air to ground I can’t say positively, but it apparently gets the job done very well. (I’m still an A6 flying dump truck fan)
The very idea of the term “versatility” leads to nothing but a compromise, and when you add compromise with both planes you will see that one is far less a compromise than the other.
gary
It is so true. And we do not live in an ideal world. Here are some examples of compromise.
When you buy the more expensive aircraft, you get less in number.
When you buy the more complex aircraft, you provide more maintainance and get lower MTBF (mean time between failure).
When you buy cheap and high performance (on paper) aircraft (aka Russian fighter), you pay a lot more in maintainance and a lot lower combat ready rate.
Why did the USAF stop F-22 production at less than 200 and plan over 2000 purchase of the F-35? It is not because of stupidity, the DoD based the decision on OPS analysis. You may not agree with their assumption or conclusion. But the richest Armed Force in the world cannot afford both.
The F-15E Strike Eagle vs PLUS the F-18F Super Hornet will provide the security that we need in the forseenable future. Case closed.
See my problem with these sort of comparison is that it rarely tells you anything about how effective they might be in actual combat. The stuff that figures heavily include whether they have a E-3/E-2 behind one of them (and its datalink), jammers, decoy/countermeasure systems, which radar suite and sensor systems they carry, different EMCONs, the increased stealthiness of the F/A-18E, ect. The actual maneuverability and pilot skill only consists of portion of what matters given how air-to-air warfare has increased in technology. Its not just the Korean when you flew around, saw the guy and shot him down; Today how you detect him, and how do you use your own emissions can be the deciding factor in who wins. Many of the factors none of us here actually know, which makes its difficult to assess how both of these aircraft would perform against each other if pitted against each other in a realistic combat scenario.
Gee… Let me think… an F-15E or a flying compromise? I’ll take the F-15E.
The F-18 only managed to get off the ground out of pure need. Since it joined the fleet the Navy has surrendered more and more of its ability to project power around the world by pushing more and more tasks handled by better, more capable aircraft off on the Hornet.
Absolutely. Its the whole reason why the USAF first had the Light Weight Fighter debate. It reminds me of Augustine’s Law which Norman Augustine (who is currently heading the NASA committee on future space flight) wrote in 1986;
In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.
[quote user=“F-8fanatic”
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.
[/quote]
[sn0ps] You are correct sir. My bad. This is what I get when I “skim” the information to “remind” myself of the “facts.” [:(DD] I humbly beg every one’s pardon for passing false information. I am actually rather glad you called me on this because it made me go back and open up some books I havn’t looked at in a while. I took a much closer look at the F-18 and what it can do. It can do a LOT. I am still standing by the F-15 but I gotta say I have a much deeper respect for the bug then I did a week ago. In fact, I think the lack of one in the stash is no longer acceptable.
Andrew
You are correct sir. My bad. This is what I get when I “skim” the information to “remind” myself of the “facts.” I humbly beg every one’s pardon for passing false information. I am actually rather glad you called me on this because it made me go back and open up some books I havn’t looked at in a while. I took a much closer look at the F-18 and what it can do. It can do a LOT. I am still standing by the F-15 but I gotta say I have a much deeper respect for the bug then I did a week ago. In fact, I think the lack of one in the stash is no longer acceptable.
Andrew
[/quote]
LOL that’s funny, bcuz that is one plane I DON"T have in my stash. I have 3 F-15’s[whstl]
The comparison between the F-15E and F/A-18F is kind of interesting.
First the F/A-18F is designed to operate from an aircraft-Carrier. It must have an airframe, and landing gear much stronger than needed on the F-15E. The F-15E has a weight advantage because of this. The arrested landings that AF fighters have hooks for are far less stressful than carrier landings. The F-15E would need to eject any remaining ordinance before landing and would need some work after being landed.
The F/A-18E/F is being upgraded from the AN/APG-73 radar to the AN/APG-79 AESA radar which enhances its performance in air to air and air to ground missions. The F/A-18E/F like the F-15E can be refueled in air which makes both likely to be able to perform needed missions. Since guided munitions have entered service the weight of ordinace on fighters is not as critical as it used to be. The USN is performing strike missions with a pair of hornets or super hornets that they would have used an entire squadron for in the vietnam war era.
The Hornet has excelent maintance and can generate multiple sorties in a day. Compared to aircraft it is likely to face the Super Hornet is superior.
The Su-33 (the Russian carrier version of the Su-27) once touted to be superior to the Hornet is being decomissioned. Operationally the Su-33 has had a much lower payload than originally designed. The Russian Navy is going to switch to a new carrier version of the MiG-29K being developed for the Indian Navy by Sukhoi-MIG corporation.
Israel isn’t going to procure the F/A-18 because they can’t afford to establish a new supply chain. When the United States killed the Lavi project and forced the IDF to buy more F-16C than it wanted it ended the close relationship between the IDF and the US arms manufacturers. Israel for instance does not want the F-22 because they can’t afford it. Israel also still intends to become self sufficient on munitions and aircraft.
I disagree with the Israelis not wanting the F-22.They are pretty self-sufficient as it stands now. It is widely discussed within the F-16 community that every airplane LM delivers to the IAF gets almost totally disassembled, and reassembled with significant changes made.
However, as it stands now we are claiming we aren’t selling the F-22 to any foreign militaries (let me go laugh for a second). When that changes the Israelis will likely come up with the money. The Japanese will likely want to jump in as well.
A few Arab states are likely to show up with their checkbooks out. Hopefully, we will be more reserved in letting them in on the latest and greatest. Let them buy Eurofighters and Rafales lest we have to deal with them in the future.
Also, if you want a spankin’ new F-16 you can still get one for a few more years. The production is being moved to Turkey.
The export F-22 will be a different animal according to my sources. Many of the capabilities of the airplane will not be needed by the IAF… There will be different capabilities needed for the JASDF.
Given our current economic state and the stimulus provided I can see the line re-opening for more USAF F-22s as well as foreign versions sooner rather than later.
As of maybe a year or two ago F-15E model derivatives could still be purchased new. I am fairly sure the tooling is still in place for them. However, this may have changed recently.
There are many cases where nations have chosen the more capable F-15 or the more cost effective F-16 over the F-18. The F-18 is, as in everything else, a compromise in price as well.
Comparing the F/A-18E/F to the F-15E is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. They have different requirements and have to operate in different enviornments.
The superhornet is a shiny F-150 pickup truck that the Navy continues to invest in. The EA-18G just went into full rate production this year. The variants of superhornet will roll out of the production line for many more years.
The Eagle is an older Cadillac that the USAF stopped production in favor of the F-22. When the Korean and Singaporean ordered the F-15, they put in updated capabilities that the Strike Eagle does not have. The USAF is upgrading the 15 too, but at a slower pace. See more detail at Wiki. Don’t count the Eagle out anytime soon.
One of the more revealing incident about the Superhornet is the Australian purchase. The current Australian government was deadset against it when they were the opposition. PM Kevin Rudd anounced his support of the Superhornet purchase 3 months into the office in 2008, citing unknown capability unknown to him. The network centric capability, high combat ready rate and low life cycle cost make the Superhornet very competitive in foreign military sales.
I love both A/C. But as far as “versatile” goes I would have to go with the F/A-18. It replaced 4 different Navy aircraft for the various roles they played. The list would be (A-6, EA-6, A-7, F-14) It is currently being used as a in air refueler, ASW (shipping not subs), Fighter/Bomber, Electronic warfair, and Air to Air combat. The new engines on the “super hornet” are much improved over the older version and with the addition of a second seat the options are limitless.
The F-15E is a great plane, and a darn good bomb platform. The thrust vectoing engines and intakes are still high tech. To my knowledge though it used only as a fighter/bomber.
I guess it would be all in how you interpret “versatile” and what you need out of the airframe to determine whichis better.
Travis
NO! During the first and second Gulf wars the F-15E was always escorted by F-15Cs. The C’s were tasked with “escort” duty and did the Air-to-Air combat. History Channel had a great show in the “Dog Fights” show. Great graphics!
Sorry!
Travis
The F/A-18A/B/C/D and the F/A-18E/F have a very high avalibility rate, the C,D,E,F models can generate multiple sorties in the same day for a considerable period. The F-14, A-6 and A-7 couldn’t. The F-14A/B/D was a hanger hog. The F-14 and the Phoenix (AIM-54C) missile were good for shooting down large bombers (Tu-16, Tu-22M, and Tu-95) at long range, MiG-29 at the same distance? Not so good.
The AWG-9 radar of the F-14A/B was completely analog (yep: vacume tubes). Resolution drops off considerably with range making it difficult to attack anything small and agile at roughly half the radar’s range. The F-14D introduced the AN/APG-71 radar. The AN/APG-71 retained the anolog transmitter and receiver of the AWG-9 and replaced all the electronics with the anaolog to digital converter and data processing system from the AN/APG-65 radar used in the F/A-18A/B. The AN/APG-79 AESA radar that is being built in to new Super-Hornets and backfit to the rest is fully digital and provides a high resolution coverage out to about 2/3 the range of the AWG-9 coupled with the new AIM-120D missile gives the Super Hornet a good BVR capability. The AIM-120D is much lighter, more agile, and faster than the AIM-54C “Phoenix” was. The F-14 rarely left the Carrier deck with more than 4 Phoenix missiles, due to landing weight restrictions. If a F-14 has 6 phoenix onboard, it will need to land ashore or else drop two Phoenix into the drink. Any F/A-18 can easily lift and land with six or eight AIM-120D without bumping into weight restrictions. With the increase in the number of Aegis ships in the fleet, more powerful versions of the standard missile and the continued improvement of the E-2C and now E-2D I would say that the USN is as safe fro missile and air attack as it ever has been. The Super Hornet F/A-18F is within a few hundred pounds of the payload of the the earlier A-6E. Unlike the A-6E if it gets in trouble with an enemy fighter it can switch to fighter mode shoot down the enemy fighter then go on to attack the target.
This link goes to a graphic about a statistic that is important for strike aircraft and shows what the Super-Hornet means for the USN.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/cv-aimpoints.jpg
Israel hasn’t been too happy with the USAF since they were strong armed into buying more F-16C fighters than they wanted. Originally Israel intended to build the Lavi domestically to replace the A-4 and early model Kfir in the light strike and close support rolls.
This is the hornet is more verstile. Hornet can carry almost every airborne weapon in the US inventory, JDAM JSOW MAVERICK HARM HARPOON SLAM CLUSTERS MINES DESTRUCTORS WALLEYE VARIOUS DECOYS etc, in addition being a refueler and so on. Making it capable of performing many many missions. The EAGLE can’t come close. It is limited in air to ground weapons it can carry and be effective.
This is VERSTILE.