A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fighter Role

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

n3sk

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:35

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 19:44

To add to it the Chinese, are graduating more engineers than any other country and their manufacturing base is growing at a much faster rate than any other country. They have the potential in the future be extremely capable.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3188
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 19:53

n3sk wrote:

So please point out where you think this "stagnated" is happening.


Years ago, there where many manufacturers cranking out designs. It seems as though Lockheed is getting all the $ for development. Lockheed is extremely capable and build some amazing aircraft. The F 22 & F 35 are capable machines and I understand the logistics behind the F-35 on carriers when it comes to maintenance and parts commonality. What I am curious about is in the future, it seems that there’s little competition, as Lockheed has a monopoly on fighter design. Hopefully they don’t stagnant. Competition breeds innovation.

At the same time, I don’t know what’s happening behind closed doors, so this could be a non-issue and I just don’t know any better.

One of my concerns is the F-18/F 35s extremely high altitude performance, +50k. Looking 10 or 20 years into the future will it be able to counter matured Su-57’s and J-20’s from a carrier based platform?


Even mature Su-57/J-20s will have inferior signature reduction, sensors, and numbers. Extreme high altitude performance is a very small part of aerial combat, and there's simply not enough difference for it to be an issue (especially in the case of the F-35.) The Su-57/J-20s will have to deal with SM-2/6 long before they have to deal with AIM-120D/AIM-260/LREW/SACM.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 704
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 21:23

mixelflick wrote:There's a reason air forces/Navy's around the world no longer build swing wing fighters/fighter-bombers


What makes you think VG wings is a problem? Even Lockheed's A/F-X, which is separate program but reuses a lot of NATF technology, uses VG wings.

Obviously you don't HAVE to have VG wings, but that doesn't mean it's outdated. Depends on what your requirements are.
Offline

wooster

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2019, 19:10

Unread post12 Jul 2019, 01:52

n3sk wrote:To add to it the Chinese, are graduating more engineers than any other country and their manufacturing base is growing at a much faster rate than any other country. They have the potential in the future be extremely capable.


They already are very capable engineers. Some of us work with them. Whatever gap there was 15 years ago is gone. Man, if you guys had first hand experience with them, you would all be singing a different tune. The gap is gone. They will overtake us. They don't have lib-tards blocking every project and advancement because it threatens a rare breed of mosquito.

The majority of all the tooling for everything sold in the USA is constructed in China, shipped to the US or Mexico and then turned on. Your American cars are basically all tooled in China. That's why the Chinese can build a credible stealth aircraft and the Russians cannot: tooling.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5306
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Jul 2019, 03:43

mixelflick wrote:The F-22N's swing wings are a thing of the past, primarily due to the fact they add weight and complexity.


What in the world gives you that idea? As others have pointed out, both the NATF F-22 and the follow-on AF/X would have had swing-wings. The swing-wing didn't kill it, budgets did.

mixelflick wrote:There's a reason air forces/Navy's around the world no longer build swing wing fighters/fighter-bombers.


Yeah, there hasn't been a need that required them recently. By your rational large cargo aircraft are a thing of the past because "nobody builds them anymore". Up until a few years ago the same could have been said of ALBMs. How'd that work out? The notion that "swing-wings are obsolete" is simplistic (to be kind). Hell, Russia is building TWO of them. They're building a new variant of the Backfire and new-build Blackjacks.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3268
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post12 Jul 2019, 12:40

I make that assertion because no 5th gen (or beyond) tactical aircraft that I can see anywhere are using VG wings. Look at Japan's concept for a 5th gen fighter. Korea's? Russia's? China's? Europe's? Turkey's? They're ALL fixed wing designs, not even a single swing wing in CONCEPT art (that I've seen). China and Russia have both pursued big carriers like ours, yet neither is pursuing any type of swing wing aircraft to equip either. You'd think if it was going to show up anywhere, it'd be in carrier aviation. But it's not, and there are good reasons for it (weight, cost and complexity).

The Backfire/TU-160? They're re-hashed hash, going back to design work done in the 1970's. Since they have fundamental problems building any type of VLO aircraft, they're working with the only thing they know. And I seriously doubt whether PAK DA or the Chinese H-20 will opt for a swing wing, either...
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5306
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Jul 2019, 14:25

mixelflick wrote:I make that assertion because no 5th gen (or beyond) tactical aircraft that I can see anywhere are using VG wings.


So what? All that means is that other countries are looking for multirole aircraft, with an emphasis on air-combat. If you looked at the future in the mid 80s you'd have thought the standard tailed fighter was "old fashioned" and "obsolete" because every artist's impression, mockup, concept, etc. was a canard-delta. How'd that work out?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4251
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post12 Jul 2019, 14:55

The biggest advantage to VG was that it allowed lower approach speeds and higher dash speeds. It is best suited to aircraft that are already going to be heavy and need all the help they can get on take-off and landing.

Use on a VLO airframe is problematic. People like to think that canards ruin stealth? Imagine a whole wing that can't decide where it is going to sit. Or do you design the plane to only be VLO with the wings swept back? What about when that plane is performing CAP duties?

I love the F-14. I am an F-14 fanboy. I have no problem acknowledging the issues of VG and VLO combining.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2580
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post12 Jul 2019, 15:33

Some of what VG did (or at least, intended) is now achieved through advances in flight controls, high-lift devices and emerging propulsion technologies.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5306
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Jul 2019, 15:50

quicksilver wrote:Some of what VG did (or at least, intended) is now achieved through advances in flight controls, high-lift devices and emerging propulsion technologies.


Not to mention the "high subsonic at 200 feet" requirement seems to have evaporated as well.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5306
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Jul 2019, 15:53

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The biggest advantage to VG was that it allowed lower approach speeds and higher dash speeds. It is best suited to aircraft that are already going to be heavy and need all the help they can get on take-off and landing.

Use on a VLO airframe is problematic. People like to think that canards ruin stealth? Imagine a whole wing that can't decide where it is going to sit. Or do you design the plane to only be VLO with the wings swept back? What about when that plane is performing CAP duties?

I love the F-14. I am an F-14 fanboy. I have no problem acknowledging the issues of VG and VLO combining.


And yet both the NATF F-22 and AF/X (or A/F-X or whatever the hell) both had swing wings with the RCS apparently optimized for the swept condition.

That said, I would attribute the stealth requirement for swing-wings going away rather than any inherent flaw with swing-wings themselves.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

n3sk

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:35

Unread post13 Jul 2019, 02:16

Maintenance wise, I have heard keeping the hydraulics from leaking on the F-14 was a constant effort. Seems like an unnecessary hassle.
Attachments
9C157039-658F-43CF-BA4F-CDFA66E785DF.jpeg
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4251
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post13 Jul 2019, 04:36

(sarcasm) that's how you know it still has fluid, like a Humvee (/sarcasm). Yeah, they were hangar queens.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2080
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post13 Jul 2019, 09:12

wooster wrote:Easier to convert the F-22 to a NATF?

Those were not my words. You can check here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090106044 ... avf22.html

wooster wrote:F-22 better fighter than F-23? Why?

Have you seen the documentary called "YF-23 secrets" I believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYUu-xLnmzM

Here in the 36 minute mark, Northrop engineers and executives said that the Lockheed made decisions to make theirs the more agile plane, although their airplane (YF-23) would have better stealth.

wooster wrote:The USAF wanted the ultimate ACM machine. That's what they would have bought in the F-23A. Faster, more maneuverable, and longer ranged than an F-15, and wrapped up in a slick ELO airframe.

You do know that the YF-22 had twice the number of control surfaces as the YF-23 right?
But I'm no engineer so what do I know.

So heres what F-16.net's resident Aero Engineer had to say about the topic
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:In this sense, even with the info we have, the YF-22 was certainly more maneuverable. It had more capability, especially on the edge, than the YF-23.


wooster wrote:F-23 has the characteristics of an interceptor and F-22 those of a fighter? How so is that? Was the F-23 like an F-104, point and click go, and hope you don't have to maneuver or meet another fighter from the wrong side?

Thats not what I said I said the YF-23 was more like an interceptor with considerable fighter characteristics while the YF-22 was more like a fighter with considerable interceptor characteristics. Both can do both jobs well but 1 can do 1 job better than it can do the other.

Another example of that is the F-15 and F-14. I don't need to tell you which one is more suited for the fighter role and which one is more suited to be an interceptor. But both can perform those jobs well.

If you want to talk about this more, lets proceed here:
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=3010&start=510
Offline

wooster

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2019, 19:10

Unread post14 Jul 2019, 01:41

Why is the F-22 a better fighter than a hypothetical F-23? A F-23 would be a better fighter. It all goes back to the OODA loop.
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests