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

[ewilen]

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

Which points to one of the problems with F-14-vs-F-15 arguments: you really need to specify the full scenario including

• Which model of F-14? Which model of F-15?
  
• Who's the opponent? Or is it an F-14 vs. F-15 duel?
  
• When/where does the fight start? (Beyond visual range? Or closer?)
  
• What are the rules of engagement?
  

Now, I have done some scans of Usenet for anecdotal evidence, and I've come up with some stuff from people with first-hand experience. See messages 13-17 in this thread. One poster with real experience wrote:

Over the years while I was running exercises for the NATO Southern

Region at USAFE Hq, I handled a lot of USAF/USN exercises and the outcome of Eagle-vs-Toms was always the same. The Toms got the long-range intercept credits and the Eagles got lots of video of Toms with pipper-burns.

But this was in the period before the F-14 got up-engined. Once the F-14's got F110's, it would appear that the advantage narrowed. I'd also suggest messages 33, 45, and 47 of this thread. An air force pilot and an F-14 pilot exchange some interesting information, with a good deal of courtesy and mutual respect, I might add.

Another point raised in these threads is the fact that the F-14 never got the AMRAAM, even though it certainly could have been fitted. So are we talking about the two planes in their "real life" configurations, or some kind of hypothetical upgrade? After all, the P-51 wasn't anything special until it got the Merlin.

Edited January 16, 2004 by ewilen

[Coota0]

Captain America, I'll admit I could be wrong, it was just always explained to me that the AIM-54 climbed and dove,and was un powered during the dive using gravity to help it further accelerate, I could definatly be wrong.

[Dobber]

That was a great thread! One of the guys said it best. "ALOT has to do with who is driving" Chuck Yeager said the same thing. He didn't care what he was flying as long as he saw his opponent first he'd win.

Pilots with experience also said when the Tomcat B/D was able to fight the Eagle on equal terms i.e. having a tanker on station they were pretty evenly matched.

Again, awesome thread! Thanks ewilen!

Chris

[91WhiskeyM6]

You're no expert.

Neither are you. Quit acting like you are.

I merely stated an opinion. The only facts I pointed to were the service records. BOTH of which are outstanding. I wasn't really picking one or the other. People are allowed to have their own opinions (that means ALL of us)

Neither are you!

I'm only quoting/repeating bonifide material data <_<

[91WhiskeyM6]

Whiskey, you need to be very careful when you slam somebody for not being an "expert." Do you have some credentials you'd like to put on the table proving you to be an expert? Seriously, relax. Everybody's entitled to thier own opinion.

Oh, I know it's an aim-54c. Typo.

Sure! here you go:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html

http://www.janes.com/

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&...iation.military

F-15 has kill record of 100-0! the F-14 6-0!

Would you like a VHS copy of Discovery Airpower tape that voted the F-15 the best fighter from the 1970's to 1985?

[91WhiskeyM6]

To summerise why the 15 is better than the Tomcat:

#1 Better thrust to weigh ratio

#2 Longer operating range than the 14,16,or18..FAST PACK's anyone?

#3 "Younger"

#4 faster

#5 Has the better name "Eagle" or "Strike Eagle" our national bird.

#6 it's an AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER meaning it's designed to massacre other birds in THEIR territories.

#7 100 TO 0 unmatched combat kills

#8 climbs faster

#9 can reacher higher altitudes

#10 Responsible for the creation of the Su-27 series fighter

#11 notice how the F/A-22 Raptor resembles the Eagle and not the Tomcat? So much for those "cool" variable wings.

#12 AMRAAM missiles are more deadlier than the OBSOLETE costlier and clumsy AIM-54C Phoenix missiles. The Phoenix has never been proven in combat! all kills by the Eagle and Tomcat involved the Sidewinder, guns, AMRAAM, and Sparrows. Why waste an expensive missile when you can use a faster 15 to get to the bogey. Also, the Phoenix has to catch the fighter napping if it's to make a kill. A fighter pilot cought by a missile lunched a hundred miles away is one 8-up pilot. Just because you fire a radar guided missile doesn't mean an automatic kill. Just read up on the Vietnam air war.

#13 More expensive and it should be

#14 Easier to maintan and upgrade than the problem plaqued "Super Tomcat" and F-14A's

#15 More wealthier nations prefer it to defend their countries from hostile threats

#16 Has a better partner in the F-16C Fighting Falcon(which I admit is the better dogfighter close range). The 14 got replaced by it's partner: the YF-17 Cobra ...errr F/A-18. The Falcon could never replaced the 15. The 16 was created because the Air Force could not affford more superior Eagles.

#17 F-15F with the canards and 2-d vectoring nozzles looks awesome! compared to the "Super Tomcat" with the new engines it can't use because of crashes.

#18 at close range dogfighting, the F-15 will fly rings around the heavier slower Tomcat.

#19 The $75 million F-15E Strike Eagle!

#20 The Eagle was designed to best the Foxbat. The feared fighter from the Soviet Union. The Tomcat? a stupid propeller driven TU-95 Bear.

Edited January 17, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[Lynx7725]

I'm seriously getting very irritated by this.

First, from a research point of view, you must provide exact articles. Not links to sites which forces people to blindly search for articles. Also, you must consider the validity of the source

http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html is okay; it's a well-known and reputable source and can be easily accessed. Your findings can be easily verified.

http://www.janes.com/ is not so good. It is a well-known and reputable source but it is not accessable. Hence we cannot verify your findings.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&...iation.military is not okay; there is no proof that any of the people posting there are any better than we are. A online forum/ mailing list is rarely if ever acceptable as a research source.

Moving on.

You also must always correlate your findings. From a search for F14 and F15 at http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html, which you provided, produces this article:

Other aircraft likely to be involved include the B1-B bomber at pounds 207million, the F117 at pounds 27million, the F14 Tomcat at pounds 87million, the F15 Eagle at pounds 21million, the F16 Falcon which costs pounds 12 million, and the F22 Raptor a snip at pounds 131million. Firing at Iraqis in their trenches, tanks and bunkers will be the close- quarter aircraft such as the A10 Warthog. It costs pounds 7.5million and fires Hellfire anti-tank rockets that set taxpayers back pounds 25,000 each.

These are presumably British pounds; translated, it becomes the following:

F14: 157.2 million USD

F15: 37.9 million USD

F16: 21.7 million USD

It must also be noted that this writer is credited as a "Foreign Editor", possibly at "The Mirror". The background of this person is unknown to me.

However, a search on other sites produces some interesting figures. At Aerospace.Org, the following figures are obtained.

F14: 38 million USD

F-15A/B: 30.1 million USD

F-15C/D: 34.3 million USD

F16: 20 million USD

Better yet, this site cites good sources per plane.

In addition, at Federation of American Scientists, the following costs are listed:

F14: 38 million USD

F15: 43 million USD

F-16C/D: 26.9 million USD [final order]

This site ALSO has good sources per plane.

My point? Online sources are ALWAYS suspect. Even sites that cite other sources can end up with varying results. Note that one of my citation has the F15 being more expensive that the F14, contradicting the other -- so which to trust?

F-15 has kill record of 100-0! the F-14 6-0!

Give me an exact article, not hearsay; I have this article with this quote:

F-15C's, D's and E's were deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1991 in support of Operation Desert Storm where they proved their superior combat capability with a confirmed 26:0 kill ratio.

Note that again this has cited some good sources at the bottom of the page. Much much less than your claims of 100:0. And it has stated the conditions it operated under -- Persian Gulf, combat, '91. For all I know your 100:0 ratio is at some air range against targets! Back your claims up with reputable sources!

[David Hingtgen]

Re: cost. It's pretty pointless to accept simply "F-14" or "F-15" from a site. They've got to be way more specific. And cite a year.

I mean, a 1974 F-14A is going to be a LOT cheaper than a 1990 F-14D. Just think about cars. 1974 vs 1990. What, quadruple the price simply due to inflation? Maybe only triple.

And finally--what DOES cost have to do with how good a fighter is, anyways? F-111 was expensive as hell, and it sucked so bad it couldn't fulfill the role it was designed for. And then there's the whole issue of how military stuff is accounted. "B-2's cost half a billion each." Not really. There's just so few (20) that the cost of the development program as a whole is only spread over 20 planes. If there were 200 B-2's, they'd only be considered to be 50 million each, instead of 500 million. (not *exactly* but I don't feel like trying to calculate out per-unit variable cost vs fixed cost of a military program---and the B-2's is probably classified anyways)

If we built 500 more F-15's, the cost per plane would plummet. Does that make it a worse fighter? If we'd only built 20 F-14's, the program cost would be like $400 million each or something--does that make it better?

Edited January 17, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Dobber]

F-15 has kill record of 100-0! the F-14 6-0!

Looks to me like they both have a PERFECT kill record. So you are saying that because the Eagle has had more opportunity it makes it better? By that logic then you are saying the Eagle is better then the Raptor which has ZERO kills. Your Logic makes no sense.

Chris

[Dobber]

#18 at close range dogfighting, the F-15 will fly rings around the heavier slower Tomcat. Read Ewilen's post.

Chris

Where did you get that Idea? According to the PILOTS The Tomcat has the edge

[F-ZeroOne]

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

But this was in the period before the F-14 got up-engined. Once the F-14's got F110's, it would appear that the advantage narrowed. I'd also suggest messages 33, 45, and 47 of this thread. An air force pilot and an F-14 pilot exchange some interesting information, with a good deal of courtesy and mutual respect, I might add.

If you do check that thread out, note the comment about the A4 Skyhawk and the F-15. I've also read that a pair of RAF Jaguars once "shot down" a pair of Eagles on a training mission, which raised a few eyebrows at the time.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the Eagle and the F-15 are both great fighters. Like all aircraft, they have their advantages and disadvantages. One point which I think has been missed is that the Tomcat is a naval fighter and has to carry quite a bit more weight than an equivalent land-based fighter ( this generally applies to most navalised aircraft ); it would probably also account for the extra expense of the Tomcat.

And if two aircraft are pretty fairly matched, as these two seem to be ( not in all areas, but one planes disadvantage in one area is probably made up for in another ), like Chuck Yeager always maintained, it then just comes down to the pilot...

Edit: so its just like Macross Plus after all!

Edited January 17, 2004 by F-ZeroOne

[Akilae]

The fighter jocks on the usenet discussions that ewilen dug out DID seem to agree, despite their differences, that the F-8 was a very formidable plane... for its time =)

[Coota0]

F-15 is on Heavy Metal on The History Channel now

[Dobber]

Yeah I was watching that also, pretty impressive. That Isreali Eagle flying on 1 wing was pretty cool!

Chris

[Warmaker]

I think I remember seeing that months ago. I could've sworn it was a USAF Eagle with the blasted main wing. I believe they said it goes to show that if you go fast enough with the right pitch, you could still limp. Also, take a look at how wide the fuselage of the F-15 is. It's been a while since I saw that special, so...

[Max Jenius]

I'd fly an A-10 Warthog. Gotta stick with the grandfather's 75th Fighter Squadron legacy.

While not as glamorous as dogfighting I could live with tankbusting.

[91WhiskeyM6]

*poof*

Edited January 18, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[91WhiskeyM6]

F-15 has kill record of 100-0! the F-14 6-0!

Looks to me like they both have a PERFECT kill record. So you are saying that because the Eagle has had more opportunity it makes it better? By that logic then you are saying the Eagle is better then the Raptor which has ZERO kills. Your Logic makes no sense.

Chris

Did I ever say the F-15 was better than F/A-22?

I don't make sense?

Would you hire somebody with 6 months experience or 5 years? too tired to come up with a better analogy.

By the way, that's 5 kills not six with one F-14 getting shot down by a SAM . What's funny about this is that F-15's for the most part operated deep inside Iraq while the 14 mostly stayed close to it's carriers.

So the F-14 isn't perfect. How the hell does a 2 pilot combat aircraft like the 14 get shot down by an Iraqi SAM? what the hell were those Navy squid pilots doing? taking polaroid pictures of an MI-8 Hip helicopter inverted ala "TopGun"? 8 the hell up(Army term for stupid ass!)!

Edited January 18, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[91WhiskeyM6]

Let me REITERATE this to all you again:

THE F-15 HAS a 100 TO NOTHING KILL RECORD

The F-15 was also the first fighter ever to shoot down the Mig-29 during Desert Storm. THE F-15C Eagle during DS had a total kill ratio of 36 to 0. That's freaking impressive!It's assinine to say for instance that Iraqi fighter pilots were scared of the F-14. In fact, an Iraqi MIG-29 pilot was so scared of the F-15 that he was duped into crashing to the ground. Scared of the Tomcat my ass.

The following is a list of F-15 victories during the Gulf War(not including Israeli/Saudi/other U.S. skirmishes):

1/17/91 85-0125 Capt John 58th TFS AIM-7M MiG-29

Kelk 33rd TFW

1/17/91 85-0105 Capt Robert 58th TFS AIM-7M Two Mirage F1EQ

E. Graeter 33rd TFW

1/17/91 85-0107 Capt Charles 58th TFS AIM-7M MiG-29

Magill (USMC) 33rd TFW

1/17/91 83-0017 Capt Steve 71st TFS AIM-7M Mirage F1EQ

Tate 1st TFW

1/17/91 85-0119 Capt Rhory 58th TFS AIM-7M MiG-29

Draeger 33rd TFW

1/19/91 85-0099 Capt Larry 58th TFS AIM-7M MiG-25

Pitts 33rd TFW

1/19/91 85-0101 Capt Richard 58th TFS AIM-7M MiG-25

C. Tollini 33rd TFW

1/19/91 85-0114 Capt Casear 58th TFS ground MiG-29

Rodrigues 33rd TFW

1/19/91 85-0122 Capt Craig 58th TFS AIM-7 MiG-29

Underhill 33rd TFW

1/19/91 ??? Sveden 53rd TFS AIM-7 Mirage F.1

36th TFW

1/19/91 ??? Prather 53rd TFS AIM-7 Mirage F.1

36th TFW

1/26/91 85-0104 Capt Anthony 58th TFS AIM-7M MiG-23

Schiavi 33rd TFW

1/26/91 85-0108 Capt Rhory 58th TFS AIM-7M MiG-23

Draeger 33rd TFW

1/26/91 85-0114 Capt Caesar 58th TFS AIM-7M MiG-23

Rodrigues 33rd TFW

1/27/91 84-0025 Denney 4th TFW AIM-9M two MiG-23

(Provisional)

1/27/91 84-0027 Powell 4th TFW AIM-7M MiG-23,

(Provisional) Mirage F1EQ

1/29/91 85-0102 Capt David 58th TFS AIM-7M MiG-23

Rose 33rd TFW

1/29/91 ??? Watrous 32nd TFG AIM-7M MiG-23

2/6/91 79-0078 Capt Thomas 4th TFW AIM-9M two MiG-21s

N. Dietz (Provisional)

2/6/91 84-0023 Lt. Robert 4th TFW AIM-9M two Su-25s

Hehemann (Provisional)

2/7/91 85-0102 Murphy 58th TFS AIM-7M two Su-20/22

33rd TFW

2/7/91 85-0124 Parsons 58th TFS AIM-7M two Su-20/22

33rd TFW

2/7/91 ??? May 53th TFS AIM-7M unknown helicopter

36th TFW (Mi-8 ?)

2/11/91 ??? Dengy 53rd TFS AIM-7M unknown helicopter

36th TFW (Puma ?)

2/11/91 ??? McKinney 53rd TFS AIM-7M unknown helicopter

36th TFW (Puma ?)

2/20/91 ??? ??? 53rd TFS AIM-9 Su-22

36th TFW

2/22/91 ??? ??? 53rd TFS AIM-9 Su-22

36th TFW

Just like in the NBA, NFL, and MLB! it's all about the "W" and nobody give's a crap about "paper champions"

"One F-14 Tomcat was lost in action on January 21st when it was shot down by an Iraqi surface to air missile, the crew ejected safely" <_< The F-14 has only 5-6 kills on it's record and those were weak ass SU-22's, Mig-23's, and a Mi-8 Hip helicopter. It's also failed to shoot down some harrasing Iranian F-4 Phantoms. The 14 was definitely just suited for fleet defense. Leave the fighting to the Eagle!

no if's and but's... no the F-14 can bat turn this, Phoenix missiles this, oh...the F-14/A-4 Skyhawk in a "mock" dogfight did this to the 15, and if it had these engines crap. Dumb ass Navy squids with their overrated "TopGun" "simulated" "MS Flight Sim" exercises with the 15's. One Navy pilot had the nerv to put a "kill" paint symbol of an F-15 on his Tomcat after an exercise with the 15's. Moron!

The F-15 is the better all around fighter between the F-14, F-16, and F/A-18 series fighters.

It's faster (reached MACH 3.0 without armaments and radar), needs only one pilot for it's AIR SUPERIORITY ROLE, has the higher operating ceiling altitude, best thrust to weigh ratio,more impressive multirole capabilites(bomber/ASAT), longer range than the other three fighters(who was the moron who wrote the 16 had longer range?), it's experimental(see pic below with canards and thrust vectoring), and can dogfight equally or surpass the other 3 fighters in all altitudes and conditions.

Had the F-15 been a cheaper aircraft, there wouldn't even be the F-16 Fighting Falcon or the F/A-18 Hornet today. Oh..the F-15 is cheap *sarcasm*

If you were going to pick a fighter to protect your skies in the 70s and 80s, YOU GO WITH THE F-15. That's why 4 1st world type nations have purchased this expensive fighter over the 3 cheaper teen fighters.

KAPISH?

!Another thing, you want proof? do a google search or do what I've been doing the last 20+ years: Read the books and magazines at your local book stores or subscribe to Air Power. My favorite military magazine I used to subscribe to was "International Combat Arms". I ain't your mommy!

here's a picture for you Tomcat fans to drool at: A navalized F/A-22N with variable wings

Edited January 18, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[ewilen]

#18 at close range dogfighting, the F-15 will fly rings around the heavier slower Tomcat.  Read Ewilen's post.

Chris

Where did you get that Idea? According to the PILOTS The Tomcat has the edge

My impression from the threads I linked was that the F-14 would be better for downing an enemy at long range. That includes enemy fighters, since if the Phoenix could "down" F-15's in simulation exercises, I doubt a Mirage or MiG would do any better.

In ACM (fancy term for dogfight), the F-15 would enjoy somewhat of an advantage, but the advantage would be smaller relative to an F-14B or D than F-14A.

Ultimately it depends on the scenario. If you want to throw something else in the mix, consider the fact alluded to above that the F-14 is designed for carrier ops, which means it can fight anywhere in the world. The F-15 depends on the availability of friendly airbases.

[Akilae]

My impression from the threads I linked was that the F-14 would be better for downing an enemy at long range. That includes enemy fighters, since if the Phoenix could "down" F-15's in simulation exercises, I doubt a Mirage or MiG would do any better.

In ACM (fancy term for dogfight), the F-15 would enjoy somewhat of an advantage, but the advantage would be smaller relative to an F-14B or D than F-14A.

Ultimately it depends on the scenario. If you want to throw something else in the mix, consider the fact alluded to above that the F-14 is designed for carrier ops, which means it can fight anywhere in the world. The F-15 depends on the availability of friendly airbases.

True True... even the AF and USN guys seem to agree that:

"The debriefs usually involved the AF guys citing gun video as clear proof of their superiority while the USN guys would caveat the results by stating that the Eagles were all morted prior to the merge. " (c'n'p without shame from the Usenet discussion :-p)

[91WhiskeyM6]

It's funny how you guys rely on "data sheets" while I keep bringing up combat records.

by the way, if you ppl are going to keep pitting the F-15C with the F-14D/Super Tomcat 21, I'm going to throw in the F-15XX in the mix.

Edited January 18, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6

[CoryHolmes]

Why would an F/A22 need sweep-wings?

[91WhiskeyM6]

It's going to operate on a carrier....Hello!!!!

[Anubis]

There is no such thing as a variable wing F-22. That's a photochop.

The navy has full intention of using the F-18's and eventually F-35's. Only variable wing left in the inventory after the 14's are gone will be the B-1 Bomber.

[91WhiskeyM6]

duh

[Anubis]

Just in case.

[captain america]

Anubis, Whiskey's photo of the "F-22N" was part of a proposal put forth by Lockheed about 14 years ago to offer the USN a naval derivative of the ATF, dubbed the NATF. It was a genuine proposal put forth by Lockheed, not a fan concept.

After numerous design and name changes (A/F-X) being one of the last I can remember, the whole project was shelved on cost grounds. The variable-geometry wing was to give the aircraft better low-speed handling which is critical for a naval fighter.

[Dobber]

Whiskey, on the History channel show that was mentioned earlier, an Eagle pilot Stated 2 eagles were losted in combat in desert storm, and he couldn't recal if any of them were air to air loses. Funny how you neglected to bring that up.

Once again, I never said that you said the Eagle was better than the Raptor, I was merely stating that you gave two PERFECT kill ratio's at the time and then declared the Eagle as the clear superior. The Raptor has NO combat experience and probably wont for some time. That absolutely does not meen it is a worse aircraft. I would suggest you "read" posts before you belittle people.

Chris

Edited January 18, 2004 by Dobber

[Dobber]

"One F-14 Tomcat was lost in action on January 21st when it was shot down by an Iraqi surface to air missile, the crew ejected safely"

What's with the expresion after that remark? Are you disapointed the crew survived?

Chris

[Dobber]

So the F-14 isn't perfect. How the hell does a 2 pilot combat aircraft like the 14 get shot down by an Iraqi SAM? what the hell were those Navy squid pilots doing? taking polaroid pictures of an MI-8 Hip helicopter inverted ala "TopGun"? 8 the hell up(Army term for stupid ass!)!

I don't know ask the 2 F-15E crews that were shot down. HMMMM....F-15E = 2 man crew.

[David Hingtgen]

Dobber brought up a point I was about to make--2 F-15E's were lost, with 2-man crews. You don't count non-air-combat-losses in a plane's win/loss ratio. The F-15E's were taken down exactly the same way as the F-14B. Getting shot down by a SAM means NOTHING for how good a plane is at fighting. "Golden BB" theory. I mean, we lost FIVE F-16's.

Next--They didn't run from the F-14? Time for me to quote:

"We were anxious to show what the long-range Phoenix could do. But it didn't happen. On my first day mission, there were a lot of Iraqi airplanes airborne over targets. As soon as we pointed our AWG-9's-our powerful radar-at themm they ran. They skedaddled in ever direction. We we frustrated, but the attack guys loved what the AWG-9 did. They asked us, 'Is there a pod we can carry that will transmit the AWG-9's frequency?' They were serious."

--LtCdr Parsons, VF-32.

Sounds like pretty good evidence to me.

There's more F-15 than F-14 pilot interviews, and not one F-15 pilot ever says anything about MiG's runing away. Blowing them up, sure, but not having them run.

More quotes, same report:

"I don't know if they knew the F-15's radar frequency, but they wouldn't react when an F-15 got close. But when a Tomcat put his nose out there, they were gone".

Finally--yes, a MiG-29 ran into the ground while engaging an F-15, but not because he was SCARED of it. The exact same thing happened with an EF-111! I seriously doubt that pilot was afraid of an unarmed plane... There were two Iraqi fighters downed just because they were lured into smashing into the ground.

[captain america]

Hi Dave.

I have that very same quote about the Tomcat's radars in the Gulf Air War Debrief. It's a great little brick with a wealth of great info

Unfortunately, I think that if you're trying to make headway and imparting facts that DON'T exhonorate the F-15 to whiskey, you're just waisting your time; aside from the fact that he's just downright insulting and arrogant, in his world, the sky is/will always be orange, no matter how many pics of a blue sky you offer as evidence.

[David Hingtgen]

Yup, that book is worth its weight in gold. More real, factual info about modern jet combat than anything else, period.

[91WhiskeyM6]

Whiskey, on the History channel show that was mentioned earlier, an Eagle pilot Stated 2 eagles were losted in combat in desert storm, and he couldn't recal if any of them were air to air loses. Funny how you neglected to bring that up.

Once again, I never said that you said the Eagle was better than the Raptor, I was merely stating that you gave two PERFECT kill ratio's at the time and then declared the Eagle as the clear superior.  The Raptor has NO combat experience and probably wont for some time. That absolutely does not meen it is a worse aircraft. I would suggest you "read" posts before you belittle people.

Chris

Excuse me, but those were F-15E Strike Eagles on bombing missions. The F-14 shot down was on CAP.

FYI: the British Tornados suffered the most casualties.

I've also corrected myself in stating that the F-14 ISN'T PERFECT! it was shot down and it failed to destroy Iranian F-4 Phantom II's.

Edited January 19, 2004 by 91WhiskeyM6