Discussion: F-14, F-15 Hybrid Idea

[KJ_Lesnick]

Well the F-15 does have an interceptor role, but as soon as you decide it's biggest missile is going to be Sparrow, then it's engagement range is automatically limited to about 30 miles. The radar can see MUCH further, but once combat's joined, the pilot really only has to concentrate on:

First: shooting Sparrows at a rapidly closing set of targets at less than 30 miles,

Next: dogfighting with Sidewinders and Gun.

Which radar has a better range assuming it's not a classified matter, the F-14's or the F-15's radar?

UFC = Up Front Control. Basically, it's a small panel on the front of the HUD that gathers together a bunch of dogfight-relevent switches and knobs, that there either isn't room for on the throttle and stick, or which need to be looked at when they're operated. It's not quite as good as HOTAS since the pilot still has to take his hands off the stick or throttle to work it, but being right underneath the HUD, the degree of look-down is minimal.

Understood...

Grumman certainly did R&D on single-seat F-14s: there are several models illustrated (IIRC) in Tony Buttler's ASP - Fighters.

I take it the workload of flying the plane, dogfighting, and using the complex-radar all at once is why they went to a twin-crew fighter?  Would their decision have been different (going with a single-pilot fighter) had the sidestick and HOTAS been chosen?  (Just asking to be sure)


Kendra Lesnick 

[Weaver]

Well the F-15 does have an interceptor role, but as soon as you decide it's biggest missile is going to be Sparrow, then it's engagement range is automatically limited to about 30 miles. The radar can see MUCH further, but once combat's joined, the pilot really only has to concentrate on:

First: shooting Sparrows at a rapidly closing set of targets at less than 30 miles,

Next: dogfighting with Sidewinders and Gun.

Which radar has a better range assuming it's not a classified matter, the F-14's or the F-15's radar?

I'd imagine the F-14, but I'll check my reference books when I get home. Bear in mind that radar range is a bit like fuel range: meaningless until a raft of conditions have been specified.

Grumman certainly did R&D on single-seat F-14s: there are several models illustrated (IIRC) in Tony Buttler's ASP - Fighters.

I take it the workload of flying the plane, dogfighting, and using the complex-radar all at once is why they went to a twin-crew fighter?  Would their decision have been different (going with a single-pilot fighter) had the sidestick and HOTAS been chosen?  (Just asking to be sure)


Kendra Lesnick 

I don't think the decision on the F-14 GIB would have different had they had HOTAS available. In any case, HOTAS doesn't involve any advance in technology as such: it's more a conceptual thing about where's the best place to put the buttons. You could have had HOTAS on F-86s in Korea if somebody had thought of it.

As I see it , the decisions went like this:

F-14 Tomcat:

This aircraft had to defend what's probably the highest value single-point target on the face of the Earth (i.e. a CVN), against tactics specifically designed to swamp the defences, and with the numbers of F-14s always limited by deck/hanger space (if you fill the hanger with fighters to defend the carrier, then what is the latter actually going to do?). Under these circumstances, anything that gave each of the limited number of F-14s an edge was worth having, no matter how expensive, hence the AWG-9, AIM-54, and the GIB to work them.


F-15 Eagle:

This aircraft had to defend a large number of targets (anything NATO, basically), with a range of values, distributed across a huge area (W.Europe), against Soviet Frontal Aviation with a large number of aircraft and choices. Under these circumstances, sheer numbers are important. Two dozen super-fighters can't be in all the places at the same time that a hundred merely good ones can be, but on the other hand, you can't compromise quality for quantity to point where you start losing in the air. Thus the F-15 was designed to out-perform typical FA fighters (MiG-21/23), but not by too much. Advances in the user-friendliness of radars meant that a single pilot was at least possible, and having the maximum number of single pilots flying the maximum number of planes was thought to be more important than halving the personnel pool in order to enhance the capability of individual aircraft with a GIB.

Nevertheless, it was felt by many that the F-15 still erred too much towards a "superfighter", hence the F-16.

[Weaver]

As I suspected, a large number of unqualified figures for radar range are bandied about. For instance, the AWG-9 is quoted as having a range of 200 miles by one source, but another implies that 137 miles is the figure the USN uses when planning CAPs. Generally speaking though, the figures for the AWG-9 (F-14A) are greater than for the APG-63 (F-15A), the maximum figure found anywhere for the latter being 150 miles.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Nevertheless, it was felt by many that the F-15 still erred too much towards a "superfighter", hence the F-16.

Of course the F-15 was a superfighter.  But there was evidently the ability to mass produce them in large numbers, so what's the problem? 

I thought the F-16 was built largely to exploit supermaneuverability, which was not as seriously exploited on the F-15 if at all, and for more multi-role capability? 

As I suspected, a large number of unqualified figures for radar range are bandied about. For instance, the AWG-9 is quoted as having a range of 200 miles by one source, but another implies that 137 miles is the figure the USN uses when planning CAPs. Generally speaking though, the figures for the AWG-9 (F-14A) are greater than for the APG-63 (F-15A), the maximum figure found anywhere for the latter being 150 miles.

Generally the figures I've heard usually point to a longer radar range for the AWG-9 than the APG-63, but I had to ask to make sure. 


KJ Lesnick

[Hobbes]

Of course the F-15 was a superfighter.  But there was evidently the ability to mass produce them in large numbers, so what's the problem?

It was very expensive. The F-16 was a low-cost alternative.

[Weaver]

Nevertheless, it was felt by many that the F-15 still erred too much towards a "superfighter", hence the F-16.

Of course the F-15 was a superfighter.  But there was evidently the ability to mass produce them in large numbers, so what's the problem? 

I thought the F-16 was built largely to exploit supermaneuverability, which was not as seriously exploited on the F-15 if at all, and for more multi-role capability? 


KJ Lesnick

Not really: as Hobbes said, the primary point of the F-16 was to be the cheap, numerous "low" end of a high-low mix, once it became clear that the F-15 couldn't be afforded in the kind of numbers that were deemed neccessary.

The F-16 was really the fulfillment of the philosophy of John Boyd, Pierre Sprey, and the rest of the "Fighter Mafia". They'd had some influence on the F-15, managing to make it primarily an uncompromised air-to-air machine ("not a pound for air-to-ground"), but it was still much bigger and fancier than they wanted: what they were really after was an American MiG-21, i.e. a cheap, simple fighter that could be deployed in huge numbers. The Lightweight Fighter Competition was their high-point, and the F-16 was always the favoured candidate since it was essentially the baseline design that they'd been using for years for their theoretical studies, made metal. The F-16 would still have happened if Relaxed Static Stability and Fly-By-Wire hadn't been available: it would just have been a bit less spectacular. 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Not really: as Hobbes said, the primary point of the F-16 was to be the cheap, numerous "low" end of a high-low mix, once it became clear that the F-15 couldn't be afforded in the kind of numbers that were deemed neccessary.

I did not know they could not afford the F-15 in the numbers desired. 

The F-16 was really the fulfillment of the philosophy of John Boyd, Pierre Sprey, and the rest of the "Fighter Mafia". They'd had some influence on the F-15, managing to make it primarily an uncompromised air-to-air machine ("not a pound for air-to-ground"), but it was still much bigger and fancier than they wanted: what they were really after was an American MiG-21, i.e. a cheap, simple fighter that could be deployed in huge numbers. The Lightweight Fighter Competition was their high-point, and the F-16 was always the favoured candidate since it was essentially the baseline design that they'd been using for years for their theoretical studies, made metal. The F-16 would still have happened if Relaxed Static Stability and Fly-By-Wire hadn't been available: it would just have been a bit less spectacular.

The only area the F-16 wasn't better than the F-15 in was speed.  It was more maneuverable, more versatile, possessed supermaneuverability, and from at least one F-16 pilot, they said they could shoot right past F-15's during vertical climbs.

BTW:  I thought Pierre Sprey was a French guy...  What's his beef with the F-22?  It sounds like he's just out to trash the jet.


KJ_Lesnick

[GTX]

I thought Pierre Sprey was a French guy...  What's his beef with the F-22?  It sounds like he's just out to trash the jet.

Pierre Sprey was born in France, though grew up in America (I believe he is American given his Pentagon work).  He is one of those truly talented individuals (apart form being one of Robert S. McNamara's  original "wiz kids", and Defence Systems Analyst he is also a highly talented musician).  He is noted for his work with John Boyd (arguably one of America's most influential strategists) that largely led to the F-16 and A-10.  Without knowing what "beef" you are referring to, I can't completely respond, though I would assume it probably has something to do with the USAF wanting to spend (waste) billions of dollars on a super high tech F-22 that isn't really needed.  After all, that was the general argument of the "Fighter Mafia" back when they argued for the F-16/A-10.  I seriously doubt he is simple "...just out to trash the jet".

Regards,

Greg

[KJ_Lesnick]

How long did the F-14 have to stay on station for as part of it's CAP and interception roles?

Kendra Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

Nobody has anything?

[tinlail]

This isn't anything I know, it's what the internet told me.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/715-f-14-vs-f-18e-f.html

F-14D

Max Speed: Mach 2.4
Max Cruising Speed: 550 Kts
Sevice Ceiling: 56,000 ft
Combat Radius: 2,000 N. Miles
CAP Station Endurance: 1hr
Deck Launched Intercept Radius (4XAIM54C 2XAIM7 2XAIM9): 134 NM@ Mach 1.5
Carrier Trap Weight(bringback weight) 51,830lbs
Max Take Off Weight: 74,000 lbs
Weapons Cleared
Air2Air: AIM-54C (6)
AIM-7 (6)
AIM-9 (2)
AIM-120 (6)* F-14D is cleared to carry the slammer, though it does not in USN fleet service today. The Hornets get the slammers, cause they dont have a chance without them.

Air2Ground (Bombcat Configuration)
MK-7, MK-20 Rockeye, CBU-59APAM, CBU-78 Gator, MK-82, MK-83, AN/ALQ "Bullwinkle" LATIRN targeting pod. GBU-24 A/B PavewayIII GBU-16 Paveway II. The F-14D is also cleared to carry the Harpoon anti shipping missile, as well as various anti shipping mines. Basicly the F-14D can carry everything that the venerable A-6 did, but is only carrying the above ordanance in active fleet service today. I presume to give the F-18 something to do.

[KJ_Lesnick]

How does the F-15's combat radius compare to the F-14?   

KJ Lesnick

[tinlail]

I wasn't able to come up with an answer. For it to mean much you would have to know that the two combat radius were for the same kind of combat missions. I haven't found any information on the web that makes me feel that there is a reasonable comparison going on.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-specs.htm

Shows that the two planes have roughly the same amounts of fuel. The f-15E, seems to carry the most the f-15C without FAST packs the least the f-14 is in the middle. I expect that the issue depends much more on load out and things like a carrier launch vs and airfield take off, than raw amounts of fuel being a big issue.

[KJ_Lesnick]

How much different would an F-15 wing behave over an F-15U like wing (larger area than the F-15's wing with a 50-degree leading-edge sweep) except not as thick (the F-15U's wing is really thick compared to the F-15A) -- at most a little thicker than the F-15A, if not the same?

Would the extra area make up for the additional wing-sweep and lower T/C ratio (assuming the wing had droops and multi-position flaps)?


Kendra Lesnick
Post 65

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was thinking of something...

My hybrid concept... I'm wondering if it would look good if it had some characteristics from the GD's VFX proposal...  they both have nice clean-cut looks.