OT, but there's a lot of F-14 fans on this board

[GreatMoose]

Max Sidewinder load is 4, one on each stub-pylon on the wing pylon, and one on each pylon itself. (The F-14's wing-glove pylon can't actually carry anything itself. But it can take MANY adapters--most commonly the Sparrow adapter. But the stub pylon's rail can only hold Sidewinder adapters, and things like it--targeting pods, etc)

Max Sparrow is 6---4 on the belly, and 1 on each wing pylon.

You can do 6/2 Sparrow/Sidewinder. You can also do 4/4, just like your standard F-15 load.

No, that was my point. I know that the max load is 2/2/4, but this dude was configured 2/2/6. Of course, it was just a demo model, but it was really cool. There was a Phoenix where each fuel tank is now. It was toward the beginning of the show, and the model was painted in the early demo scheme (white with black and red trim).

Edited January 12, 2004 by GreatMoose

[bake_art]

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?

[Coota0]

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 and becaus in a U.S. war the Air Force is in charge of the air war and the Air Froce flies F-15s, so if there is a chance of some air-to-air action the Eagles get sent in.

The F-14 was only bought by one other country, Iran, but after the 1979 takeover in Iran an embargo was put in place and the Iranians could no longer get parts or technicians for their F-14s so they pretty much sit on the ground. Only the US Navy flies Tomcats now, I could be wrong but I don't believe an F-14 has ever been shot down either, but they've killed MiGs over the Med and in the Baltics. In Desert Storm an F-14 never even saw an enemy fighter, the only Navy kills came from Hornets, I figure it's probably because the Iraquis wanted to hit the bombers, not the fighters.

Warmaker, they have what's called buddy pods, so that Hornets or S-3s can pass gas to other aircraft.

I also thing the EA-18 might work pretty well, i like the idea of a Weasel type plain, I'm just not sure if the Hornet is big enough, and if the workload is gonna be too much for basically just a backseater.

[David Hingtgen]

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.

[Apollo Leader]

Too bad the Tomcats were never given AMRAAM capability. and i think the jigs were destroyed.

Blame Dick**** Cheney for this.

I don't know what the exact reasoning behind this story of Grumman having to destroy some of the manufacturing capabilities to manufacture additional F-14's, but I will have to say this:

1) When Cheney was Secretary of Defense in the late 80's/early 90's, it should be remember that his responilities were for the entire Defense Department and not just one naval aviation program.

2) At that time, it was planned that a true F-14 successor, in the form of a navalized F-22 or F-23 would be fielded in the late 90's. But of course in the Bill "I loathe the military" Clinton 90's, that wasn't going to happen.

[Apollo Leader]

The F-14 was only bought by one other country, Iran, but after the 1979 takeover in Iran an embargo was put in place and the Iranians could no longer get parts or technicians for their F-14s so they pretty much sit on the ground. Only the US Navy flies Tomcats now, I could be wrong but I don't believe an F-14 has ever been shot down either, but they've killed MiGs over the Med and in the Baltics. In Desert Storm an F-14 never even saw an enemy fighter, the only Navy kills came from Hornets, I figure it's probably because the Iraquis wanted to hit the bombers, not the fighters.

Actually stories exist to this day that some of Iran's F-14's are still in flyable condition in part because of help from the Russians.

Iran's F-14's did see combat in the 1980-88 Gulf War between Iran and Iraq. It is known that some were shot down by both SAM's and in air-to-air engagements, but the exact numbers are not known. I don't know the exact title of the book or the author, but I have seen in a local hobby store a pretty good size book that was published a year or two ago about the Iran-Iraq air war that might be worth checking out.

As for Desert Storm, I believe the F-14 has at least one kill in the form of a helicopter.

[Apollo Leader]

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.

Another thing to consider is that most of the Navy's aircraft were limited to Kuwait and southern Iraq so they only saw action mainly there. The Iraqis had heavily mined the waters of the Persian Gulf right outside of Kuwait forcing the carriers to be kept back at a safe distance.

[Apollo Leader]

Before I forget, I watched both programs on the F-117 and F-14 Friday night. Generall they were okay (they even got one of the two Have Blue test pilots interviewed), but there were a few number of errors and inconsistencies. Here are a few:

1) When talking about the Have Blue, they cut to F-117 photos and footage a number of times.

2) The editors couln't make up their minds if the F-117 is a bomber or a fighter.

3) The narrorator blindly labels all laser-guided bombs that the F-117 carries as "bunker busters". To my knowledge, most of the weapons the F-117 has used in combat has been the 2,000 lbs GBU-27 which is basically just a Mk84 with a laser sensor and guidance fins (not sure what they were using for Iraqi Freedom). The only true conventional "bunker buster" that I can recall off the top of my head is the 5,000 lbs GBU-28 and it's later JDAM version, the GBU-37. (I need to get caught up to speed on what bombs the F-117 is using these days )

4) Considering the show was made after Iraqi Freedom, it seems baffling that nothing was even mentioned the existence of the much superior B-2 (a true stealth bomber) and that a real "stealth fighter" in the form of the F-22 is starting to enter service.

5)One criticism of the F-14 show off the top of my head, the narrorator gives the impression that the F-111B was soley Grumman's creation; this was a joint project by both General Dynamics and Grumman to navalize the F-111 Aardvark.

[ewilen]

At that time, it was planned that a true F-14 successor, in the form of a navalized F-22 or F-23 would be fielded in the late 90's. But of course [rest edited out]

This thread is already off-topic for MW, and I realize we're bound to skirt political issues when talking about real-life military procurement decisions. But let's please show a little restraint or it's likely the thread will be locked.

[Lightning]

those who want to read up on a good pilot and brilliant mind, read Boyd he helped design the F-15 and F-16, and some of his theories are going into the newest planes as well. (he was a big detractor of the F-111 and F-14 though, but what he pointed out was right bout the planes)

[F-ZeroOne]

I had forgotten how many "wrong plane" shots there were. If it wasn't an F-14, assume the plane they were showing WASN'T the plane they were talking about. (Ironically, they even did a "Top Gun" and showed some F-5's as MiG's)

I saw a similar programme about Spitfires a little while ago. All TV producers repeat after me, "Hurricanes are not Spitfires, Spitfires are not Hurricanes... "

Repeat!

[Coota0]

Another thing to consider is that most of the Navy's aircraft were limited to Kuwait and southern Iraq so they only saw action mainly there. The Iraqis had heavily mined the waters of the Persian Gulf right outside of Kuwait forcing the carriers to be kept back at a safe distance.

There wer Carriers in bothe the Med and Red Sea, both had fighters flying into Iraq on missions, from the Med, unless you took one hell of a detour, you'd be coming through Northern Iraq. The kill ratio was in favor of the Air Force, because the Air Force was in charge. the Navy put their Tomcats in a position to hit anything thay could, i.e. anything the Air force would let them hit, and the Navy managed to dhaft the Marines (as usual) only one Marine pilot knocked down a MiG and he was on an exchange program with the Air Force flying F-15s. The Air Force wanted the F-15s getting the Air-to-Air action, even the F-16s were being shunned.

*To qualify my statement about the Marines, they did have fewer Honrets in theater (only real fighter the Marines have, but AV-8s can carry air-to-air) and the Marine zoomies are typically most concerned about supporting the grunts.

[bake_art]

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.)?

[David Hingtgen]

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)

[captain america]

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.

Speed tends to be more important at low altitudes, when a fighter has to get in/out of a target area quickly. Here, the venerable F-14(B/D) is king, having the best acceleration and top speed of 1.5+ at sea level, matching that of the SU-27.

In terms of manoeuverability, the F-14 B/D will more or less match the performance of the F-18C in a dogfight, but has far greater range, a better fire control (and missle reach) system and is somewhat more stable in the mud-moving job. While we're still on the topic of "dogfighting", it might be interesting to note that the F-14 has a better lift/drag ratio than the F-18 AND the SU-27 and will actually lose energy more slowly (out-manoeuver)than a Flanker in a tight-in dogfight. According to the russians, the Tomcat is also superior to the Flanker in terms of instant turn performance and rate of climb.

Basically, the reason the Tomcat is being retired is because of its high maintenance costs and safety record. The F-18E is more cost effective in this arena, and is much safer to bring-back aboard deck (mainly because of it's newer, all-digital flight control system... A similarly-equipped F-14 would do about as well) but it loses out to the Tomcat in almost every respect in the combat arena: far shorter range, poorer acceleration, lower speed, rate of climb, rate of turn, etc...

For what it's worth, Mc Donnell Douglas won't even give any performance data for the F (which is the REAL replacement for the Tomcat, not the E model) model Hornet, which it knows will fare far worse against the Tomcat due to its extra bucket and reduced centerline fuel tank.

[ewilen]

One potential source of semi-objective data might be one of the better board wargames on the subject of air warfare. The best of which is probably the Air Power series of games. (I only have passing familiarity but it's certainly the most popular of the bunch.)

[91WhiskeyM6]

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?

[91WhiskeyM6]

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"

Edited January 15, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[Apollo Leader]

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.

[91WhiskeyM6]

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?

Edited January 15, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[91WhiskeyM6]

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

[91WhiskeyM6]

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.

Edited January 15, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[captain america]

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.

[91WhiskeyM6]

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?

Edited January 15, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[captain america]

The F-14B/D is roughly $10-13 million more than the F-15, depending on whose figures you use, and what year you choose to quote from... Too rich a price for just about everyone except the US, and for a VEEERY short period, Iran

[VF-19]

Well, I'm not sure as to how much a tomcat goes for, but $35 million is fairly cheap for a top of the line fighter (if your number is correct). What most people like to do is maximize their purchase. If you can purchase more F-15s with a given amount of money over F-14s, then they will most likely buy the 15s. Oddly, though, Wouldn't having more 15s equal more money spent in maintenence, ordinance etc..

[91WhiskeyM6]

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

Edited January 15, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[91WhiskeyM6]

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).

[captain america]

Fi VF-19. I don't think the "$30 million" includes the cost of R & D though, I think that's just the fly-away cost. The government likes to quote prices to the public selectively, to avoid giving everyone a cardiac arrest; the "true" cost of an airplane is usually 40-60% more than the fly-away cost.

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.

[captain america]

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

[91WhiskeyM6]

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?

Edited January 15, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[91WhiskeyM6]

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.

Edited January 15, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[Lightning]

in response to the topic of the AF having to accept a navy plane, the F-17/18 was actually a Air Force plane, so this time the Navy got stuck with it.

[91WhiskeyM6]

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

[Lightning]

definately, u wanna know why?

*larger wing area

*more guns

*faster firing rate

*less weight

*engine didnt guzzle as much fuel

*larger wing area + less weight = more manuverablilty

it also could recover quicker from stalls