Mig23,

Here is something the F-15 doesn’t have problems with nor even the F-16…. powering through the vertical with a combat load. Also the contempt of engagement thing. Super wont’ be contempt of engaging anything. I.E. deciding when and how to enter a fight because one possesses the power/energy to do so. Super Hornet is a very nice strike fighter. However the power/acceleration just isn’t there to do sustained power games.

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/vault/articles/2003/0606.htm

BFM Is Always a Good Deal … Isn’t It?

by Lcdr. Frank “Salami” Silebi/ FA-18

I have never said the F-18 is a miracle fighter, it is simply an aircraft that can fight as the F-18C did before but with more weapons and reduced RCS with an enlarged fuselage and wing.

see
In the course of time the F/A-18E/F will also replace the maintenance intensive F-14 Tomcat in service, for example, with squadrons VF-14 and VF-41. An air wing consisting only of Hornets and Super Hornets is to be established by 2003 (probably CVW-11).

The US Navy will thus be totally reliant on the Super Hornet for the foreseeable future. As far as the programme office is concerned, the following characteristics of the Super Hornet constitute the key to successful handling of the new operational scenarios:

Range and mission duration. According to the US Navy the operational radius on attack missions has increased by some 40 %. With two auxiliary tanks, the single-seater has a range of 822 km or 855 km as a fighter escort.
Payload. The Super Hornet can carry some 8,030 kg of weapons, tanks or similar from eleven stores stations. Interestingly, one of the missions envisaged is as a tanker. The F/18E can carry 13,610 kg of fuel and escort the fighter-bombers through to the target area, something not possible with the S-3 Viking that is currently deployed.
Survivability. Although not a stealth aircraft in the true sense, the radar cross-section (RCS) of the F/A-18E/F has been significantly reduced, especially frontal aspect RCS, for example as a result of modifications to the air intakes. There is also a comprehensive electronic warfare suite.
Bring-back capability. With the F-18C/D there is the problem that apart from the necessary fuel reserve only a very light weapons payload can be brought back to the carrier. The problems this causes were particularly evident during patrols over the former Yugoslavia or Iraq where it was constantly necessary to make compromises as regards range and weapons fit. The Super Hornet on the other hand can return 4,310kg of valuable unexpended ordnance and unused fuel to the carrier

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH0109/FR0109c.htm

The difference in agility is not that big that it can’t be compensated with a good pilot. And please drop your crappy “the MiG-29C…”. The MiG-29 “9.13” (C is the NATO code letter) is not more maneuvrable than the stock MiG-29 “9.12”.

The Su-27 carries 10 AAM, but only 8 when jammers are used. The F-15 jas inbuilt jammers.
The maximum load of the Hornet is no practical configuration and it is more than unlikely to see any Hornet in such a configuration for a real combat mission.

The F-15 is not the best american fighter niether the worst, however it is not as agile as the F-16, yeah you can equip an F-18E with AIM-9X and AIM-120 and you have a fighter that basicly will be as good as any fourth generation aircraft ncluding the F-15 and F-14.

But you have to see that price plays a very important part in the game of buying an aircraft, in general terms the F-18 is a very good aircraft and for its price an excellent purchase

Defense Minister Director General Ilan Biran says that the Defence Budget is shrinking. He points out that the F-15s bought in 1976 cost Israel $26 million each while the current F-15s cost $86 million per aircraft. “The new aircraft are a much more capable aircraft (longer range, more sophisticated missiles, advanced avionics and improved onboard systems) but the price is two to three times more.”

Lockheed Martin executives said the F-16 price tag will be the most attractive feature of their offer. They say the new version of the fighter jet, the Block 60, will feature a conformal fuel tank and similar range to that of the F-15I. This would allow the F-16 to reach the long-range targets such as Iran and Iraq that the Israel Air Force feels might be required in any future Middle East war.

A senior L-M executive says the Israeli Air Force will not need a new support and training structure for the new F-16 as that required for the F-15I. “The Block 60 has new capabilities but it is, in structure, the same type of plane,” the executive said. “We want to keep the F-16 at $30 million, fly-away.”

Predicably, McDonnell Douglas executives disagree with this position but say that the next batch of F-15Is will be considerably cheaper those already ordered. They are talking a stripped-down version of the F-15I for about $50 million

sourcehttp://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/154/documentid/452/history/3,2360,654,154,452

Boeing’s F-18E/F Offer: Lower Price, Higher Volume

Aug 13, 2007
Aviation Week & Space Technology

Boeing is offering the Navy what one Pentagon source calls a “tempting” deal for an all-time-low flyaway price of $49.9 million for new F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. The cost is guaranteed for a third multi-year buy of 170 aircraft, but this is nearly double the Navy’s stated commitment for 92 more. Still, the deal “is going to be pretty tough for the Navy to turn down,” says a Pentagon official. The proposal comes as Defense Dept. leaders worry that the cost of Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter will continue to grow. The Navy has told Congress it has a shortfall of 50 fighters, due in part to two factors–an accelerated burn rate of fighter hours combined with decreased projections of the design life of existing aircraft. Boeing could begin delivering the first aircraft from this deal two years after the award date. The offer would carry the production line to 2013; current work ends in 2009.

sourcehttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/VIDF18.xml&headline=Boeing’s%20F-18E/F%20Offer:%20Lower%20Price,%20Higher%20Volume

@MiG-23MLD,
honestly I don’t know what you want to tell me, because your entire answer doesn’t reflect anything I said and seems to be a misinterpretation.

i just meant this

F-14 strong points: wide range of air to air missiles from ranges of 150km to 500 meters, long range radar fast speed an realtively good agility however less agile than the F-15, F-16 and F-18, early multi engagement capability

F-14 weaknesses: expensive, slow rate of climb, 6.5G overload limit, barely better than the Mig-23 and F-4, maintainance demand intensive and low production

F-15 strong points: high speed, 4 medium range BVR air to air missiles, large weapons load, good agility and multi role capability

F-15 weak points: less agile than MiG-29, Su-27 and F-16, low production rates and expensive price.

F-16 strong poins: very agile single engine fighter, cheap and easy to build, multirole capability

F-16 weak points: slower than MiG-29 and Su-27s, limited number of BVR missiles and late BVR air to air combat capability (it got it only in the 1990s), single engined and limited warload

F-18 strong points: good agility, BVR missiles and WVR weapons good price, twin engine, excellent omnirole capability

F-18 weak points, slow speed, slow accelation, short ranged

The only known F-15A combat radius is 1800 km with 3 drop tanks in an AA mission. F-16A range was mostly given with 925 km.

The early F-16s were relative limited in comparison to the F-15. They weren’t BVR capable, had to operate at day in good weather, much less powerful radar, no IFF etc.. Newer F-16s are more capable but still lack behind in BVR combat performance. You have to see the missions which both aircraft were designed for.

Though there might be more F-18 customers, the total number of F-15s is about 30% higher. And the F-15 is still in production, the original Hornet is not.

I guess declaring what fighter was better in part is senseless, for example the F-18 is like the MiG-29 has a mediocre combat record, the F-16 and F-15 do have excellent combat records in terms of air to air.

Does it mean the F-18 is worse than the F-15 honestly i do not think so.

Number one each fighter was designed with a mission in mind, the F-18 was a medium range fighter with multirole combat capability.

Now if we hypothetically think which fighter was better it depends in the needs of each air force or armed services.

The F-16 is a light weight dogfighter with multirole capability, the F-15 is a heavy weight fighter with BVR and dogfight combat capability, the F-14 was an all range air to air fighter able to fight at any distance thanks to its arsenal of air to air missiles.

Now to say what fighter was better well it always will depend in the mission and budget involved, for small nations with small air spaces to protect the F-16 was excellent.

for nations with needs to beat high flying high altitude fighters at BVR range combat the F-15 and F-14 were excellent.

A nation like the US is wealthy it can afford to buy all these types, however other nations can not even the mighty Soviet Union did not afford some many different types of fighters like the US

The AIM-120 was 15 years away! The AIM-7F is a big improvement over the -7E, but its no Phoenix.

In almost every picture of the F-14 that I have, the F-14 has Phoenix pylons mounted. The F-14 can bring back four Phoenix plus four other missiles. Its not six Phoenix, but its a lot. The AIM-7 was not the main BVR weapon until the Phoenix was retired. The F-14D would even lug a Phoenix under one wing on bombing missions over Iraq.

I wouldn’t want to count on the target always being head on. Its also always better to shoot down the target sooner, and farther out, so more speed means you have more chance of hitting the target before he has a chance to launch his missiles.

There will be a need for the F-14 until the last Backfire is melted down. Even after that, the F-14 has better range and payload than any flavor of F-18, and it is a better fleet defence intercepter.

The AIM-120 is sophisticated, but it does not have the range and hitting power of an AIM-54. And the argument that you can operate more of a cheaper fighter only works for the Air Force. A carrier can only fit so many planes, so they better be the best you can get.

Rocky

There is some few things you forget about the F-14, swing wing fighters do have structural troubles because the swing wing are prone to structural weakness in the moveable part joint of their wings and a max G load of 9Gs do complicate things

If you analize the max overload of swing fighters and attack aircraft you will find they usually have Max overloads limits of 7Gs or 6Gs.

see

A)Su-24M it has a max overload or 6Gs

B)F-111 also has a max overload of 6Gs
C) Panavia Tornado has a max overload of 7.5Gs

When you look at the F-18 and F-15 these aircraft eliminated those troubles with fixed wings with aspect ratios of an average of 3.5 and LERXes.

The Russians did experience troubles with the MiG-23 and the americans did too in fact this limited the F-14 to overloads of 6.4Gs in order to increase operational life,

In fact this fact and its price at the end defeated the F-14 while the F-15 and F-18 are still in production the F-14 has not been in production since more than a decade