Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spool2.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: F-14 vs F-15 Keywords: Tomcats, Eagles, which one is better? Message-ID: <1991Jan22.014043.18325@cbnews.att.com> Date: 22 Jan 91 01:40:43 GMT References: <1991Jan19.043622.6577@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN Lines: 67 Approved: military@att.att.com From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) > From: zam@athena.mit.edu (Nor Aazizam Mohd Aasif) > > My friend and I were discussing about the US jet fighters and we finally > came down to debating whether the F-14 is better than the F-15(E). You are comparing apples and oranges. The F-14 is a fleet defence plane. Its job is to make sure that there is no threat to a carrier within its sphere of operation. These threats would be incoming aircraft. The F-15E is a ground attack version of the F-15. Its job is to deliver bombs in any weather condition and be able to defend itself on the way out. You cannot compare these two rolls. Would you want an F-15 on a carrier? The landing gear would not survive the first carrier landing. If you compare a F-15C (ie, not the Strike Eagle) to a F-14 and ignore the differences in carrier vrs land based, you will have a fairly even match. Differences are mainly nits, such as the F-15 having slightly better thrust to weight ratio. The F-15 carries AMRAAM, whereas F-14 has the Pheonix. Both have shorter range missiles and small cannons. > My opinion is besides the F-117 stealth fighter, there is > nothing more devastating and powerful in the sky than the F-14. This is an even wilder comparison. The F-117 is not a fighter. It should have been called something like the A-13 (or A-12 back then, with the A-13 being the Avenger). The F-117 is designed to drop 2 2000 pound laser guided bombs on high valued targets. Not overly powerful, and not really devastating, but rather, a highly specialized single mission plane. From the film that we have seen on CNN, it looks like the F-117 does that job very well. Pilots report that they can get within 12 seconds of their target before being detected, which leaves very little time for any type of defense. Tomcats are not designed to carry any type of bombs, it is strictly a fighter. The Tomcat has the power to carry a heavy load, but it is difficult to put a lot of hard points on a swing wing plane. > My only reasoning is that the F-14 is the only jet fighter that is > able to carry the Phoenix missiles with their range over 100 miles, > while the F-15 is only equipped with Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, > which in my opinion, are inferior to the Phoenix missiles. The F-111A was designed around the Phoenix missile, but I doubt that any F-111's currently have the Phoenix mission--the F-111s currently are either long range light bombers or electronics planes. The Phoenix is extremely expensive. If you can get within the range of a Sparrow, you save your country quite a bit of cash. Plus, with the weight of a Phoenix, you can carry many more Sparrows. Rather than comparing planes for superiority, try matching planes to their missions. When aviation writers talk about air superiority fighters, the opinion is that the F-15 has no match. But I'm sure that you would do OK if you chose the F-14 instead. As far as a plane that fullfills its missions, I would just as soon have an A-10 Warthog painted up with teeth. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================