F14 Tomcat....

[DrainBamage]

Equal...omg.....F-16 would be all over an 18. Thank god we never had to use it in a real war.

They both have advantages and disadvantages, air combat isn't a video game like you think it is where you look up some specs on top speed or climb rate and pronounce one aircraft as far superior.

F-18 has lower RCS, and better low speed handling especially AoA than F-16. Which aircraft defeats the other head-to-head depends on a lot of variables including pilot ability, situational awareness going into the fight, and even a bit of luck.

 

[DrainBamage]

And now we fly the worst F-15s in the world and our AF atrophies. Navy could have had a long range penetrating stealth drone but that was headed off at the pass by the JSF morons because it endangered their pot of gold.

The F-15Es that have upgraded AESA radars can go toe-to-toe with any F-15 in the world.

I understand you're stubbornly sticking to your bizarrely emotional arguments against F-35 but bottom line it has continued to dominate other aircraft in Red Flag exercises by massive margins, only an utter fool such as yourself would discount it and declare the service receiving massive numbers of F-35s as atrophy.

 

[DrainBamage]

Exactly. Spec sheets don't lie.

Actually they kind of do, at least when trying to use it to make the argument you're making. Fighter top speed and altitude peaked in the 1970s for a reason, and the overwhelming majority of kills in modern air combat are at transonic speeds and medium altitude.

You live in this naive comic book world where all combat aircraft go zipping around at their stated full afterburner top speed and max altitude regardless of combat load and fuel considerations, but that isn't how it works. There are tradeoffs made because situational awareness and LO make or break air combat in the modern era.

There is an interview with an F-22 pilot on youtube where he says despite the stealth and gaudy performance capabilities of the aircraft any F-22 pilot will tell you that SA is the best feature and what makes it the dominant fighter it is. Meanwhile you're in here pointing at spec sheets.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You never carry full complement of Hornets anyway and your carriers dont have the reach THEY SHOULD BECAUSE of short legged Hornet

What on earth are you talking about, F-18s can carry drop tanks and F-18s can be refueled, including by other F-18s.

One of the other posters posted this video. If you look closely at the F-18, his racks are for missiles or bombs. He has a whole host of drop tank rails. What you are seeing is a F-18 set up for Tanker Duty during an Exercise. In real life, he would have wall to wall drop tanks and would be meeting that tanker outside of the contested area. He would reenter the fringe of the contested area, refuel F-18s until his gas was all but gone, exit the area, meet up with a tanker,repeat as necessary. If you used a full sized tanker for that mission, the Tanker would last but a matter of minutes.

 

[Manonthestreet]

You never carry full complement of Hornets anyway and your carriers dont have the reach THEY SHOULD BECAUSE of short legged Hornet

What on earth are you talking about, F-18s can carry drop tanks and F-18s can be refueled, including by other F-18s.

One of the other posters posted this video. If you look closely at the F-18, his racks are for missiles or bombs. He has a whole host of drop tank rails. What you are seeing is a F-18 set up for Tanker Duty during an Exercise. In real life, he would have wall to wall drop tanks and would be meeting that tanker outside of the contested area. He would reenter the fringe of the contested area, refuel F-18s until his gas was all but gone, exit the area, meet up with a tanker,repeat as necessary. If you used a full sized tanker for that mission, the Tanker would last but a matter of minutes.

yeah that's called waste of a fighter cause short legs. Something Navy acknowledges is a prob against China

 

[Manonthestreet]

And now we fly the worst F-15s in the world and our AF atrophies. Navy could have had a long range penetrating stealth drone but that was headed off at the pass by the JSF morons because it endangered their pot of gold.

The F-15Es that have upgraded AESA radars can go toe-to-toe with any F-15 in the world.

I understand you're stubbornly sticking to your bizarrely emotional arguments against F-35 but bottom line it has continued to dominate other aircraft in Red Flag exercises by massive margins, only an utter fool such as yourself would discount it and declare the service receiving massive numbers of F-35s as atrophy.

stay on topic idiot, hint its not f-35

 

[Manonthestreet]

Equal...omg.....F-16 would be all over an 18. Thank god we never had to use it in a real war.

They both have advantages and disadvantages, air combat isn't a video game like you think it is where you look up some specs on top speed or climb rate and pronounce one aircraft as far superior.

F-18 has lower RCS, and better low speed handling especially AoA than F-16. Which aircraft defeats the other head-to-head depends on a lot of variables including pilot ability, situational awareness going into the fight, and even a bit of luck.

Pilots being equal f-18 loses more than it wins.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I have to say the basic lack of understanding by everyone in this thread is the difference in a fighter and an interceptor. None of you seem to grasp those very different roles.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You never carry full complement of Hornets anyway and your carriers dont have the reach THEY SHOULD BECAUSE of short legged Hornet

What on earth are you talking about, F-18s can carry drop tanks and F-18s can be refueled, including by other F-18s.

One of the other posters posted this video. If you look closely at the F-18, his racks are for missiles or bombs. He has a whole host of drop tank rails. What you are seeing is a F-18 set up for Tanker Duty during an Exercise. In real life, he would have wall to wall drop tanks and would be meeting that tanker outside of the contested area. He would reenter the fringe of the contested area, refuel F-18s until his gas was all but gone, exit the area, meet up with a tanker,repeat as necessary. If you used a full sized tanker for that mission, the Tanker would last but a matter of minutes.

yeah that's called waste of a fighter cause short legs. Something Navy acknowledges is a prob against China

That short range is compensated by having enough F-18 tankers refueling the other F-18s. You still don't get it. No other Carrier Fighter can do that and still protect itself. If you watched the clip you would see it still carried 2 defensive missiles. But it had a ton of hard points for drop tanks for refueling.

The combat range of the F-16 is 500 miles once it drops it's two drop tanks with it's 6 missiles. That's about the same range as a F-18 once he drops his tanks as well. If either of them keeps the center line drop tanks, and goes to 2 sidewinders, the range just went to over 1200 miles for either one. That's about what the SU-33 gets with the same loadout. The Rafale does a bit better but not much. There isn't much difference between the Rafale and the F-18 on overall performance and the SU-33 falls well short. And so does the Mig-29K.

Meaning, as carrier fighters go, the F-18 ties for the best fighter in the world and all others are also rans. Only the Rafale can be favorably compared to it.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I have to say the basic lack of understanding by everyone in this thread is the difference in a fighter and an interceptor. None of you seem to grasp those very different roles.

F-14 could do both. Supercat even better.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I have to say the basic lack of understanding by everyone in this thread is the difference in a fighter and an interceptor. None of you seem to grasp those very different roles.

F-14 could do both. Supercat even better.

That is my point. The day of the interceptor has passed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have to say the basic lack of understanding by everyone in this thread is the difference in a fighter and an interceptor. None of you seem to grasp those very different roles.

F-14 could do both. Supercat even better.

And you could only have half as many onboard due to space. And half as many due to support and logistics. And half as many due to economics. Let's face it, the F-14 got wore out and was due to be replaced. Life is hard on a carrier and the F-14D made it for 30 years and the A made it for 40. The new D was just too expensive and was in competition with new 5th gen fighters for the Navy. It's like my old trainer who came up to me right after my last win as a Boxer and said, "It's time". Every Boxer/Fighter understands that. "It's Time". And in the middle 2000s, some trainer went to the F-14 after it's last hurrah and said, "It's time".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Equal...omg.....F-16 would be all over an 18. Thank god we never had to use it in a real war.

They both have advantages and disadvantages, air combat isn't a video game like you think it is where you look up some specs on top speed or climb rate and pronounce one aircraft as far superior.

F-18 has lower RCS, and better low speed handling especially AoA than F-16. Which aircraft defeats the other head-to-head depends on a lot of variables including pilot ability, situational awareness going into the fight, and even a bit of luck.

Pilots being equal f-18 loses more than it wins.

Now, put the fight over water. The F-18 always tries to drag the fight over water where HE has the advantage. The F-14 had to do the same thing. What a seasoned pilot does is to get you to play his game. That's how he got to be a seasoned in the first place.

And the F-18 wins enough against first class fighters. Just like the F-14 lost to our F-15s from time to time in exercises as well. The only thing that proved was that was the F-15 had a different radar and could locate the F-14 from a higher incident rate while the F-14 had a narrow band and could see further. The F-14 was designed to tangle with Bear Bombers and didn't need to locate fighters that were spaced out. The F-18 radar isn't the narrow cone that the F-14 is. The F-18 is designed to see those spread out fighters. In today's world, the F-18 is the superior fighter over the F-18. Just remember, that's a lot of tonnage that the F-14 is having to sling around from side to side.

 

[DrainBamage]

yeah that's called waste of a fighter cause short legs. Something Navy acknowledges is a prob against China

No, that's called flexibility. F-18s are actually far more efficient in numbers because they can self-escort, instead of having different squadrons of attack fighters and interceptors.

F-14 was better at one thing, intercepting Soviet bombers.

 

[DrainBamage]

Pilots being equal f-18 loses more than it wins.

Perfect example of your video game thinking. F-18 has lower RCS, superior low speed handling. The former is advantage BVR, latter advantage WVR.

You have absolutely zero evidence to support your claim other than your usual naive fondness of top speed performance characteristics.

 

[DrainBamage]

stay on topic idiot, hint its not f-35

That's pretty funny, your comment was "our AF atrophies".

When it's pointed out AF is in process of rapidly acquiring hundreds of 5th generation fighters, that's suddenly off topic. I guess if your logic fails you can just cover your ears, shut your eyes, and change "nah nah nah" like a nine year old.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I have to say the basic lack of understanding by everyone in this thread is the difference in a fighter and an interceptor. None of you seem to grasp those very different roles.

F-14 could do both. Supercat even better.

And you could only have half as many onboard due to space. And half as many due to support and logistics. And half as many due to economics. Let's face it, the F-14 got wore out and was due to be replaced. Life is hard on a carrier and the F-14D made it for 30 years and the A made it for 40. The new D was just too expensive and was in competition with new 5th gen fighters for the Navy. It's like my old trainer who came up to me right after my last win as a Boxer and said, "It's time". Every Boxer/Fighter understands that. "It's Time". And in the middle 2000s, some trainer went to the F-14 after it's last hurrah and said, "It's time".

So THAT is what caused your brain damage! Now it is all so clear why you are a dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Equal...omg.....F-16 would be all over an 18. Thank god we never had to use it in a real war.

They both have advantages and disadvantages, air combat isn't a video game like you think it is where you look up some specs on top speed or climb rate and pronounce one aircraft as far superior.

F-18 has lower RCS, and better low speed handling especially AoA than F-16. Which aircraft defeats the other head-to-head depends on a lot of variables including pilot ability, situational awareness going into the fight, and even a bit of luck.

Pilots being equal f-18 loses more than it wins.

Now, put the fight over water. The F-18 always tries to drag the fight over water where HE has the advantage. The F-14 had to do the same thing. What a seasoned pilot does is to get you to play his game. That's how he got to be a seasoned in the first place.

And the F-18 wins enough against first class fighters. Just like the F-14 lost to our F-15s from time to time in exercises as well. The only thing that proved was that was the F-15 had a different radar and could locate the F-14 from a higher incident rate while the F-14 had a narrow band and could see further. The F-14 was designed to tangle with Bear Bombers and didn't need to locate fighters that were spaced out. The F-18 radar isn't the narrow cone that the F-14 is. The F-18 is designed to see those spread out fighters. In today's world, the F-18 is the superior fighter over the F-18. Just remember, that's a lot of tonnage that the F-14 is having to sling around from side to side.

Yu do realize the Navy operates over water and 70% of the earth's surface is water, don't you dumbass?

The F-14s always flew with shipboard controllers or AEW aircraft like the E-2C Hawkeye. The F-14 was built from the ground up as an interceptor for Russian bombers. The Phoenix missile system can't even be used in a dogfight to much effect.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Pilots being equal f-18 loses more than it wins.

Perfect example of your video game thinking. F-18 has lower RCS, superior low speed handling. The former is advantage BVR, latter advantage WVR.

The way a F-15 defeats a F-18 is to keep the speed up just below mach. But then again, that's the speed the F-15 always chooses to fight. Even a F-22 will lose if it allows the F-15 that ability as will every other fighter in the world. That is if you let the F-15 choose the fight. The F-18 wants to slow the fight down where the high supersonic birds can't grab enough air to make a tight turn. Due to the F-18's size, he uses ground clutter better than the others. If you want to fight him, you are going to have to come in low. Since you are going low, you are going to also have to slow down. On the Deck, you are in the F-18s world. Even a F-15 will decline that fight. The ways to become an old fighter pilot is to never fight the other guys fight. If you can't get him to fight yours, disengage. It doesn't take Mach 2.5+ to disengage. The F-18 has two options to disengage. He can head out over the water really low and your radar is going to pick up so much noise it's going to be worthless or he can head into a hilly or mountain region and dare you to come in after him.

On that same note, how does a F-15 disengage? One second you have him locked up, ready to fox the kitchen sink at him and the next second he's gone. Just disappeared. He hit the burners, went UP faster than any other fighter short of a Mig-25 or 31 and ends up at whatever altitude you wants to be at including well past his "service ceiling". And you don't have a single missile that can follow him. There is no wonder why there has been no combat losses of any F-15. The F-15 pilot is trained to force you to fight his fight or he just leaves. And the F-18 pilot will force you to fight his or he hides. This is why modern fighter fights are in seconds not minutes like they used to be.

I can't speak for the SUs and Migs but I doubt if they are any different. They are going to want moderate speed turn and burn fights. That's where they are the best at. If they don't get it, just leave.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

stay on topic idiot, hint its not f-35

That's pretty funny, your comment was "our AF atrophies".

When it's pointed out AF is in process of rapidly acquiring hundreds of 5th generation fighters, that's suddenly off topic. I guess if your logic fails you can just cover your ears, shut your eyes, and change "nah nah nah" like a nine year old.

And the Marines aquired their F-35Bs and the Navy is getting ready to do a huge buy of the C models as well. All of a sudden, the F-14 isn't missed at all.