91WhiskeyM6

Of course, in a true dogfight, I'd want a fairly early F-16C. Block 30A or so.

PS---MiG-25's at speed can't turn worth sh*t. If there's any fighter a Phoenix could hit, it'd be an intercepted MiG-25.

I'd take the 15 cause it's superior ALL AROUND.

By the way,  the "experts" nominated the P-51D and the Eagle as the best fighters of all times. What are your credentials and the credibility of your sources?

I'm sorry, but I can't let that one go. Anything with "expert opinion" like that is going to rather subjective. If theres one thing I've learned from reading about air combat its that no one aircraft is entirely superior to another.

For example, take the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa ( "Oscar" ) of W.W. II. BY late W.W. II standards, it was obselete - slow, poorly armed and very lightly built. Yet pilots flying such heavily armed, fast and sturdy aircraft as P-38 Lightnings learned to be careful when taking them on, because the agility of the Hayabusa, even by late war standards, and in the hands of a skilled pilot, made it a very difficult target. Theres a number of accounts of a lone Hayabusa dancing around four or more US aircraft.

Or take my favourite, the Supermarine Spitfire. If you take the Spitfire story as a whole, although I think the P-51 was a superb fighter, I think the Spitfire just edges it simply because the P-51 was designed with the benefit of two years combat experience. When Reginald Mitchell designed the Spitfire, he didn't have that benefit. Yet from its very first engagements, the Spitfire was proved to be "right" in almost every respect ( there was, of course, a couple of years of "fine-tuning" pre-war. There probably has never been a military aircraft that has been perfect from the word go ) - so right, that it stayed in production all through the war, the only Allied fighter to have been in production from before the war started to the end.

Yet, of course, the Spitfire had its weaknesses - the early models were at a disadvantge in a dive compared to the Me-109, and it had a much shorter range than the P-51. But then, the Spitfire had been designed as a defensive fighter...

...like I say, its all rather subjective...

You're no expert.

BOTH aircraft have excellent service records in their fields of operation... Neither type of aircraft have suffered extensively from aggression of opposing aircraft. (I believe very few..if any of these have been shot down)

BOTH aircraft serve as national icons for air superiority.

Why trash-talk one or the other? I'd much rather fly an F-14 than a flanker or Foxbat. I think in terms of reliability and performance it still far outranks it's russian counterparts (overall, not in specific categories.... "climb rate"... meh what a weak argument.)

You're on crack! I'd rather have the Flanker than the Tomcat. The Flanker also has the best short range air-to-air missile in the Archer outside the ASRAAM.

I saw that discovery channel airpower comparison too, just a few days ago and I serously quetion it.

They never say who their experts are or what they do, just that they've gathered the world's aviation expert's together and here's what they said was the best out of the 4-6 fighters we let them caompare. I noticed there was a disturbing trend that the majority of the fighters were all U.S. Air Force Fighters, with a few exceptions: the WWII attacker was the German Stuka (No One else had a dedicated attack aircraft, U.S. torpedo and dive bombers weren't even an option, I didn't see the British Mesquito either) The Aircraft of WWI category picked a German bird too. (but we weren't even involved until 1917, it was eitehr gonna be a french or German aircraft) Finally in the late Vietnam period they picked the F-4 (everybody flew the F-4, how could it not be picked)

Anybody else think this show was a little less than expert?

Yeah, you guys are experts? You have Phd's in this field like those people working for Janes, Airpower, etc?

I'm only repeating the hundreds of books/media I've read on the 14,15,16, and 18 series fighter that the 15 is the best fighter PERIOD.

Seriously, Whiskey. Take a breath, brother. It's just an airplane. Both the -15 and the -14 EXCEL at what they were designed to do. I will say this, the -14 is a much better dogfighter than you're giving it credit for. Also, the AIM-64 was never intended to go after fighters. It was intended to down bombers and cruise missiles. I don't think that it's fair to label either fighter better than the other. They've defended this country for almost 30 years, and that says something. Oh by the way, did you know that there are plans to keep the B-52 in service until potentially 2050?!?!! I heard that from a DoD guy, and was like, WTH?! Sweet! 100 year old bombers!

That's "AIM-54C" "brother" and no! the Tomcat isn't the better dogfighter compared to the DECLARED BEST FIGHTER OF WORLD(1970S TO 1980S)F-15C Eagle.

Look at it this way:

The F-14 role was to protect a 90,000 ton warship. The 15's role was protecting your ass and your valk collection. <_<

As for the Phoenix's role? try telling these kids that just because it can launch a clumsy missile at a slow moving target doesn't make it all that.

Seriously, I think 99% of you pick the 14 cuz' it looks cool.

Yeah, but the 15 is better at intercepting the Foxbat because it can climb faster and can chase it farther than the Tomcat can.

Goddam! only Graham, UN Spacy(what happened to Voltes V pare?), and I listed anime from the 70s. You guys are missing out on some classics.

The F-14 has the most powerful radar.  It has the longest-range missiles.

F-15's are faster. 

If it's a regular Tomcat, it has less power than an F-15.  If it's a Super Tomcat, they're equal. 

Their manueverability is about equal I'd say, in most conditions.  (F-14 is probably a bit better when slow, F-15 is probably a bit better when fast)

So? Those missiles aren't designed for shooting fighters.

It's funny how you guys are mentioning "Modern Marvels", because it was "Modern Marvels" or another Aviation show that aired the best fighters of all times back in 1996 in the Discovery Channel(thank god I taped that episode).

"Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM)

Outer Air Battle Missile

During the 1980s the Navy invested in developing the Phoenix into a robust, long-range, high-energy weapon system, and in the late 1980s embarked on a program to develope an improved follow-on capability in the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM). Advanced Common Intercept Missile Demonstration (ACIMD) tests demonstrated the technology and hardware for a highly advanced Sparrow-sized, integral-rocket-ramjet-propelled, multimode-guided air-to-air missile for the long-range outer-air battle. The Navy planned to maintain and support an adequate Phoenix missile capability until the AAAM is fielded in sufficient numbers. A missile retrofit program incorporating an already developed and demonstrated block upgrade to the AIM -54C was a cost-effective interim solution. As of 1990 it was estimated that it would require at least 10 years to introduce the follow-on Advanced Air-to-Air Missile.

With the end of the Cold War there was a general recognition that the outer air battle -- the battle against Soviet naval aviation bombers -- was significantly reduced in importance. While AAAM was seen as the best defense against the Soviet naval air arm, the future threat would consist of Third World fighter-bomber or diesel-electric submarine. This changing security environment doomed this Phoenix missile successor [as well as the associated F-14D Super Tomcat upgrades], and the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile program was cancelled in 1992. "

Psss... so much for long range air-to-air missiles. The F-14D was cancelled because it's useless PERIOD. I hate that stupid move "TopGun". It brainwashed alot of civilians out there.

The Navy F-4 Phantom II didn't have any guns at one time until Mig-21's began kicking their asses close up.

Not only that, the F-8 Crusader was supposibly the better dogfighter than the navy F-4.

As "cheap" as the F-15s are, SU-27s are even cheaper, and that's why countries like Australia are dumping their F-18s in favor of the cheaper, less sophisitcated & easy to maintain russian fighters. It's shocking, but a huge goose like the Flanker costs about as much as an F-16, and has much greater service range... Hard bargain to beat.

Sorry, but your precious Tomcat is actually cheaper than the Eagle as it should be since the F-15 is regarded as the best fighter of it's time. Not only that, the Eagle can operate farther distances than the Tomcat both fully loaded.

hmmmm...faster, climbs higher, and can linger around longer in a dogfight. Not to mention it's EXCELLENT combat resume.

The F-15 was designed to go into somebody's "MAP", establish itself as the neighborhood bully and kick-ass(reborn P-51D Mustang)! The Tomcat was designed to shoot from long range....*yawn* When the Russians developed the Flanker, they did that in response to the teen fighters, but primarily in GOD's fear of the Eagle. That's why you see side-by-side pictures of these two as the best fighters out there 10 years ago. Do you see any pics of the Flanker and Tomcat together?

F-15'S role: Air SUPERIORITY fighter

F-14's role: Fleet air defense(meaning it's gotta shoot before a military aircraft can lunch anti-ship missiles)

Which role do you expect the best fighter to be in?

The AIM-54C Phoenix was designed to shoot down slow ass bombers/cruise missiles. I don't care what the Navy/Grumman brass says! An agile fighter that detects a missile fired from 100 miles away can afterburn it's way out of danger. The TU-95 Bear can't easily do that. That's why a land based 14 is useless. Heck, I can dodge missiles fired from long range by diving to the ground at Mach 2 + and avoid getting shot down in my DID Total Air War simulation PC game. The Phoenix is a big clumsy missile that can't turn as good as the Sidewinder, Sparrow, or the AMRAAM. Totally unsuitable for dogfighting. This is actually a weakness in the Tomcats since it has to carry them on it's cap missions. This is what pisses me off about 14 fans, unless your fighter's name is "RAPTOR", shooting from long distance has a low kill rate.

When it comes to dogfighting, that's the Air Force's job period! just look at the F/A-22(AIR DOMINANCE FIGHTER).

Here's my cookie to you 14 fans:

"Following the loss of three aircraft over a four week period in 1996, the CNO ordered a safety stand down to review what was known in order to find out if there were any operational restrictions that needed to be placed on the aircraft. The Navy placed interim restrictions on the F-14 in the low altitude, high speed environment. Afterburner use was prohibited for F-14Bs and F-14Ds at all altitudes except for operational emergencies. "

some fighter! can't even do a burner without crashing with those wonderful difference making engines.

You don't really need to "catch" a Mig 25/31: at it's top speed of Mach 2.8-ish, the plane will use up all its fuel in 80 seconds. Just be patient and wait for it to run out of gas and fall out of the sky... Don't even need to waste an expensive missile 

Oh? your MILITARY expert advice? I suppose you'd let a Mig-25 fly over your airspace taking snap shots of your ICBM facilities and what not even for a short flight time right?

A navalized F-15N isn't ideal because it can't carry 6 Phoenix missiles like the Tomcat for fleet defense. Just like a land based Tomcat isn't ideal because it can't catch the Mig-25(The Eagle set the fastest climb rate at that time and asked the Israelis).

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm

Cost per F-15C : $43 million

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm

cost per F-14D : $38 million

Without wanting to be a stickler on this issue, I must disagree with 91Whiskey on his choice of words: with identical engines, the F-14 is still a superior airframe. Why? Better aerodynamics, better transient performance, lower RCS, better fire control system, greater missile range, and also better in one very important facet...

As it has become policy now to actually visually identify a "hostile" target before taking action (moving away from the BVR warfare concept of the 60s), the Tomcat beats all aircraft because of the standard inclusion of the Television Camera System mounted on the chin of all models. This allows Tomcat crew the ability to visually identify targets up to 9 miles away; a feat impossible to the naked eye, and no other fighter has this feature, thus giving the F-14 an extra added edge.

Why did all the supposed "wealthy" nations not opt for the F-14 in stead of the F-15, you ask? Probably for the same reason the US Navy didn't use the Tomcat to replace all the A-6 and A-7s aboard ship the way it originally wanted to: the bloody thing just costs too much. The F-14 is considerably more expensive to purchase, and also to maintain, so even countries with a good chunk of change to throw around wouldn't be able to afford it.

Interesting little tidbit: Grumman had proposed an F-14L to the air force. "L" for LAND-based version, minus the extra weight of a reinforced undercarriage, landing gear, etc, etc, which would have outshown the F-15 in range and agility, but because the Air Forced had been forced to "accept" a navy plane as its standard fighter just a generation back with the F-4, the brass in the AF killed the idea out of spite.

Also, the Navy had commissionned an F-15N in '75 to evaluate as a possible alternative to the F-14. The plane had lost so much agility and gained so much weight in the navalization process that the concept was deemed unsuitable for carrier use.

Oh, and the 15 is cheap? the Eagle cost over $35 mil. Another thing, the 14 is much older than the 15, why didn't the Air Force just buy this "worldly" Naval fighter like it did with the F-4 Phantom II instead of funding the F-X program? The Phantom was an orginal Naval fighter and you'd think having the AIM-54C proctecting NORAD would persuade them.

Can a 14 catch a Mig-25/31 up there?

By the way, the "experts" nominated the P-51D and the Eagle as the best fighters of all times. What are your credentials and the credibility of your sources?

Not necessarily the best, but all stuff I love....

Key words

I should say Akira, but after watching it twice, I'm rapidly so sick of it! I like Venus Wars more than I like Akira and they both use cool bikes and Tanks.

#1 Voltes V (my first introduction to Japanese Anime back in the late 70's)

#2 Space Battleship Yamato(can't beat the 70's and that ROCKING theme song)

#3 Mazinger Z(again, the 70's)

#4 Transformers(up until Prime died and then when Beast Wars came along)

#5 DragonBall Z/GT (who doesn't like Super powered beings that use martial arts and it's funny/serious at the same time?)

#6 Macross(this is below DBZ because DBZ was more engrossing)

#7 Fist of the North Star

#8 Ninja Scroll

#9 Heavy Metal(remember the sex, violence, and cocaine scenes?)

#10 DYRL 84'

Edit:

#11 Macross Plus

#12 Venus Wars !!!!!!

#13 Wicked City

#14 Animatrix

#15 Wings of Homosex..err spell????

#16 Macross 2

#15 PatLabor

Another thing, why is Iran the only country to ever purchase the Tomcat? Why not Canada which had to deal with TU-95 Bears with the whole NATO NORAD thing. Why not RICH countries like Japan and Saudi Arabia?

I'd take the F-15E Strike Eagle over the F-14D, F-16C, and F/A-18E/F anyday. Why? because that aircaft has the best of everything you need in a multirole aircraft.

err... a little off-topic on an off-topic post, but can someone here tell me which interceptor is more superior, the F-14 or the F-15?

It's a personal opinion, the F-15 has never been shot down and has a massive amount of kills, but that's because a lot of other countries bought F-15s

aside from personal opinion, is there any objective data that I can use to compare F-14s to F-15s (e.g. range, engine capacity, radar, manueverability,etc.)?

And why did these countries(Japan and Saudi Arabia)buy the F-15 Eagle over the Tomcat?

Don't forget Israel who's F-15's (and pilots) have a stake in about half or more of all F-15 kills.

All together, four countries (including the US) operate the F-15 Eagle.

Oh yeah, I forgot about those bastards

The F-15 is faster at high altitude in it's maximum speed range (mach 2.5) as opposed to the F-14's mach 2.34. However, as almost any fighter Jock will tell you, the aircraft are hardly (if ever) pushed to these limits because of the massive fuel consumption rate ($$) and safety issues.

This is what pisses me off when comparing the Eagle and Tomcat: The Engines! everybody say's that if the Tomcat had the newer engines, nothing could equal it. Okay, what if the Air Force went ahead and continued to develop the F-15F Eagle with the canards and 2-d vectoring nozzles?

Desert Storm:  USAF took control of air-to-air. F-14's were ordered not to go after fighters unless they got VERY close.  F-15's could go after anything, even outside their own radar range, directed by AWACS.  Iraqi pilots ran from F-14's, not from F-15's.  --If an F-14 even turned on its radar, they'd run like crazy, and the F-14's wouldn't even have a chance to get close enough to shoot.  But the F-15 had no such effect, they didn't fear it, so they stayed--and got shot down.  F-14's had pretty much one mission only, escorting A-6/A-7's.  And even when Iraqi planes got fairly "close", F-15's were sent in.  (They learned to fear the F-15 after about day 2, but by then most everything was already shot down, or escaped to Iran) 

Basically, F-15's were on CAP 24/7, while F-14's were assigned to escort duty only.  (And recon).  Several reports of F-14's waiting for MiG's to get in range (F-14's were allowed to engage only if they got within X number of miles), when they'd see F-15's go streaking by, being allowed to chase after whatever they wanted.

They didn't fear the F-15 because they probably thought they were manned by less skilled Saudi pilots who in fact killed the first Iraqi Mig-29 in the air in 1991.

The F-15 is king period. No engine this coulda-shoulda and that excuse. Just like the NFL, it's all about the "W's"

err... a little off-topic on an off-topic post, but can someone here tell me which interceptor is more superior, the F-14 or the F-15?

It's a personal opinion, the F-15 has never been shot down and has a massive amount of kills, but that's because a lot of other countries bought F-15s

aside from personal opinion, is there any objective data that I can use to compare F-14s to F-15s (e.g. range, engine capacity, radar, manueverability,etc.)?

And why did these countries(Japan and Saudi Arabia)buy the F-15 Eagle over the Tomcat?

I will die the day they retire the F-14...

I love the thing so much.

/me cuddles 10 year old 1/48 toy he got somewhere...

The biggest mistake on retiring the Tomcat:

No idiot was dumb enough to take on an F-14

expect alot more dogfights with the new fleetdefenders

the good news is:

we can all buy one in a few years time, start saving peeps!

Please! assuming a fighter got passed the AIM-54C missiles, the Tomcat bleeds hydraulics like any other fighter. This is why the Tomcat got replaced by A MORE MANUEVERABLE and versatile fighter: The F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

Without the danger of TU-95 Bears or the TU-160 BlackJack Bombers. Why continue producing or deloping a fighter larger than an adequate one?

The F-15C Eagle is king among the teen US fighters(14,16, & 18)with OVER 90+ kills without ever being shot down. The Eagle was utilized by many nations in killing Mig/Sukhoi/French fighters.

The Best fighter of all time? the P-51D Mustang of WW2. The F-15 Ranks second.

So... which Autobot will this Mazda be?

Also "a-hole World", apparently. 

The mods are angels here compaired to other forums and chatrooms *Cough*#tvnihon*cough*

And no. I'm not kissing ass here. I'm for real.

Damn right! I can't stand those a-holeS at Row-bo-tek.com! That site reeks of censorship and fascist bootleg cooperate stench. Not only that, most of the posters(95%) all have the IQ of an E-coli bacteria and don't know squat about JAPANESE Anime. Sad really

Hardcore collectors collect these:

Stooopid asses pay $80 for "it":