Jump to content

F-14A VS clean F-16


captain_dalan

Recommended Posts

Hey chaps! Just a quick heads up.....

 

Head over to the Tomcat Association Members page on FB. There is a great F-14A vs F-16 (both clean) discussion over there, with lots of Tomcat and adversary drivers participating. I think you are going to love it! :thumbup:

 

Safe flying

:pilotfly:

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey chaps! Just a quick heads up.....

 

Head over to the Tomcat Association Members page on FB. There is a great F-14A vs F-16 (both clean) discussion over there, with lots of Tomcat and adversary drivers participating. I think you are going to love it! :thumbup:

 

Safe flying

:pilotfly:

 

That Facebook page is an incredible wealth of Tomcat info! Thanks for sharing!

 

There are of course arguments and general bias on both sides but it looks like the consensus is that the F-14A didn't really stand a chance against the F-16. Now the increased performance of the F-14B with the GE F110 engines is a different story. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FM of the F-16 in DCS is realistic enough to test all of this out. I imagine that there will be plenty of Tomcat vs Hornet dogfights though!

i5 7600K @4.8GHz | 1080 Ti | 32GB 3200MHz | SSD | DCS SETTINGS | "COCKPIT"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Facebook page is an incredible wealth of Tomcat info! Thanks for sharing!

 

There are of course arguments and general bias on both sides but it looks like the consensus is that the F-14A didn't really stand a chance against the F-16. Now the increased performance of the F-14B with the GE F110 engines is a different story. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FM of the F-16 in DCS is realistic enough to test all of this out. I imagine that there will be plenty of Tomcat vs Hornet dogfights though!

 

There is one F-14 pilot who was leaving the Navy for the Air national Guard- his application for the F-16 unit was a 1v2. He took an F-14A out and beat both of them and got the job. This is apparently a credible storing- nothing with yanking 10g and out maneuvering the F-16s- just perfect guns D and max performing an F-14A to capitalize on mistakes. Gotta get his name- I need to dig it up.

VF-2 Bounty Hunters

 

https://www.csg-1.com/

DCS F-14 Pilot/RIO Discord:

https://discord.gg/6bbthxk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't the USN use a variant of the F-16 (F-16N) for DACT? I mean, granted, they would have been using the F-16 to mimic MiG-23 and MiG-29 tactics, but still, there would have been a lot of simulated combat between the rwo aircraft.

 

https://theaviationist.com/2015/03/26/f-16n-best-adversary/

 

This is an article that talks about the F-16N and has some video of F-14A vs F-16N.

i5 7600K @4.8GHz | 1080 Ti | 32GB 3200MHz | SSD | DCS SETTINGS | "COCKPIT"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end any F-16 beat up all version of USN F-14. How you may ask? Simple, all USN F-14 are scrap metal or non flyable, F-16 are still churning along from block 10 to block 60 and beyond. :D:smartass:

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many F-16's have landed on a carrier deck 2,500+ times?

 

None...and?:huh:

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None...and?:huh:

 

F-16's didn't take nearly the abuse that the Tomcat did and had the benefit of being a very flashy fighter.

 

Where as the Tomcat had the deck stacked against it by having a SecDef at the time who had a grudge against Grumman and decided to kill any future F-14 development and forbid the Navy from going to an all F-14D fleet with upgraded technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologies, I must repeat my question, and?:huh: What your point?

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey chaps! Just a quick heads up.....

 

Head over to the Tomcat Association Members page on FB. There is a great F-14A vs F-16 (both clean) discussion over there, with lots of Tomcat and adversary drivers participating. I think you are going to love it! :thumbup:

 

Safe flying

:pilotfly:

 

" F-14A VS clean F-16 "

 

I assume we're talking about BFM here.

 

Although the F-14A is for many reasons probably my favorite US jet fighter, I don't consider it a "match" to the F-16 in therms of dogfighting (all other things, like pilot quality, being equal).

 

The F-16's own creation and nature were made with the dogfight concept in mind.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't win dogfights (as it already did in dogfights against the F-16 and many others), but in a pure jet vs jet dogfight performance, I believe the F-16 is superior.


Edited by Top Jockey

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Facebook page is an incredible wealth of Tomcat info! Thanks for sharing!

 

There are of course arguments and general bias on both sides but it looks like the consensus is that the F-14A didn't really stand a chance against the F-16. Now the increased performance of the F-14B with the GE F110 engines is a different story. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FM of the F-16 in DCS is realistic enough to test all of this out. I imagine that there will be plenty of Tomcat vs Hornet dogfights though!

 

You are welcome mate!

 

The F-16C in DCS currently is a block 50 or 52 if i recall correctly (too lazy to start mission creator right now). The F-16s used by the adversaries were F-16N, the big engined block 32 stripped of all the wight not required to keep them flying. This would probably make them extremely tough opponents even to the today's best.

 

Now my takeaways from that discussion.....

 

1. Be prepared for a tough fight, one you may not be able to win.

2. You advantages lie in the negative domain of the power curves (bleeding slower at corner or sustaining it with less altitude loss - your choice)

4. Viper's advantage is in the positive domain of the power curves. At lower alphas it has up to twice the excess power then the Alpha Cat.

5. Where you want the Viper to be is the high alpha, where you can continuously apply pressure and don't let him recover; try to get him there by either a once circle merge geometry or over the top of the egg.

6. If he rides an N, a clean N not used to simulate a 21, 23 or 29, but a gloves off F-16N......... you only hope is probably his mistake. He apparently was able to even out point you.....

7. Add some bags on them, and even the best F-16s were about equal the equivalently loaded F-14A's....

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-16s used by the adversaries were F-16N, the big engined block 32 stripped of all the wight not required to keep them flying. This would probably make them extremely tough opponents even to the today's best.

 

AFAIK, F-16N where modified block 30 (GE engine) Block 32 where the first to use PW-220, before F-16 use the PW-200. Now from updated block 10 to block 42 use the -220. So block 25 and 32 are very similar now, could be one of the reason so few block 32 are around when compares to others blocks. Also, USN started to use block 15 for the Aggressors back in 2002, the F-14 was still around right?


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the Tomcat was still around in 2002, sadly it was decommissioned from the US Navy in 2006.

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end any F-16 beat up all version of USN F-14. How you may ask? Simple, all USN F-14 are scrap metal or non flyable, F-16 are still churning along from block 10 to block 60 and beyond. :D:smartass:

 

That's a strange point, but I guess. In the same way that I kicked Bruce Lee's ass because I am alive and he is dead...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a strange point, but I guess. In the same way that I kicked Bruce Lee's ass because I am alive and he is dead...

 

Not the same thing. One thing to consider is that there is more to an aircraft than its performance in paper. Think about it, twice the crew, more people to train, to feed and they need the place to sleep. Twice the engine and more complicated so you need more parts. More fuel for the same range. More maintenance hour per flying hour. Harder and harder to find parts. How can you fight me is your can't afford to or you do not have the people or your aircraft is broken or on this case retired?

 

We can compared the aircraft on paper, in fact it has been done to death in many forums over the years, but nobody ever talk about this part of the equation. People compare HUD tapes which have no value since to much information is missing. A F-14 on and F-16 sight could be a new student at the beginning of a course. An F-16 in the sight of an F-14 could be a student at the end of the course, where the student should be to get proficiency and show progression.

 

Anyway, my point mostly joking and being a smart ass, but must of us to tent to forget no matter how great the aircraft is, if it can't fly, what is the point?

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say this:

 

Not the same thing. One thing to consider is that there is more to an aircraft than its performance in paper.

 

Then you go on to talk about the performance on paper.

 

The thing is, the F-14 could fly, and fly very well. The government chose not to let it fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say this:

 

 

 

Then you go on to talk about the performance on paper.

 

The thing is, the F-14 could fly, and fly very well. The government chose not to let it fly.

 

What? The government chose not to? I feel like Brad in Pulp Fiction, What?

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the same thing. One thing to consider is that there is more to an aircraft than its performance in paper. Think about it, twice the crew, more people to train, to feed and they need the place to sleep. Twice the engine and more complicated so you need more parts. More fuel for the same range. More maintenance hour per flying hour. Harder and harder to find parts. How can you fight me is your can't afford to or you do not have the people or your aircraft is broken or on this case retired?

 

...

 

Of course, but it had to be like that, because that's what was needed to acomplish the intended mission goals at that time, and an aircraft like the F-16 just wouldn't cut it.

 

For example, it wouldn't be able to carry 6 Phoenix missiles if needed; neither a big radar like the AWG-9.

 

Would not be possible to cruise at high speeds with those missiles (and such a big airframe) with only one engine; etc.

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, the F-14 could fly, and fly very well. The government chose not to let it fly.

 

 

What? The government chose not to? I feel like Brad in Pulp Fiction, What?

 

Hi Mvsgas, Sideswipe is referring to the decision of the Secretary of Defense and Congress to cancel the F-14D program in favor of the yet to be created Super Hornet.

 

It was a very contentious issue at the time as senior Navy leadership overwhelmingly favored the F-14D. They sent numerous letters and direct solicitation for at least 250 new build F-14Ds. In Congress, the only two retired Aviators (John McCain and John Glenn) also strongly preferred the F-14D. But ultimately Congress chose the Super Hornet over the objections of the Navy, after which all tooling for the F-14 was also ordered destroyed by Cheney - which led to some interesting solutions and work arounds for Tomcat maintenance at the end.

 

Of course, part of the Navy's strong preference for the F-14D was the fact that the airplane existed and indeed met all specifications while the Super Hornet was a "paper airplane" and regarded as high risk in terms of meeting the same performance. These estimates proved to be true as the Super Hornet hit Op Eval with more operational deficiencies than any aircraft previously tested by them - mostly related to transonic handling, acceleration, stores separation, and range. Over time many of these issues were resolved, but performance in many categories suffered between the transition from the Tomcat to the Super Hornet (namely range, speed, and payload).

 

The gist of all this is that the Navy wanted the Tomcat (no organization is homogenous - I am referring to leadership) and Congress chose the Super Hornet.

 

But you can see this difference of opinion manifest in other ways to: did you notice that the F-14 transitioned from the Reserves first! I haven't heard of the reserves receiving a new airplane before front line squadrons - definitely an unusual case. Also, the Navy kept the Tomcat deployed and in combat till the very end and worked hard to keep every aircraft it could flight worthy. Without access to spares production (remember the tooling was destroyed) keeping the aircraft maintained was extra challenging, but the Navy made a great show of keeping airframes in the air across all 3 F-14 models.

 

F-16 are still churning along from block 10 to block 60 and beyond. :D:smartass:

 

Churning....do you mean all the F-16s that are being converted to drones?

 

QF-16.jpg

 

I guess since they have them sitting around with nothing better to do with them. :D:smartass:

 

This didn't happen with the Tomcat, every airworthy airframe was precious to the end and even retired airframes were considered high-risk (and therefore cut-up to prevent spares harvesting).

 

But politics aside, the Tomcat's time has come and gone. Luckily a glimpse of what it was like is coming soon - and it is awesome! You should definitely give it a try. :joystick:

 

Just to know and understand what it was all about....:)

 

-Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supplementary to the above I'd urge anyone here who hasn't seen the Design Evolution of the F-14 video to watch it to the end. Everyone was proud of the F-14 and what it had become and what it could have become in the future

 

The so-called Super Tomcat ideas being floated about at the time were very impressive on paper.

 

I don't think the same is true of the Super Hornet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, but it had to be like that, because that's what was needed to acomplish the intended mission goals at that time, and an aircraft like the F-16 just wouldn't cut it.

 

For example, it wouldn't be able to carry 6 Phoenix missiles if needed; neither a big radar like the AWG-9.

 

Would not be possible to cruise at high speeds with those missiles (and such a big airframe) with only one engine; etc.

 

Not arguing any of that, but if you look at some of the missions flown during the last years of the F-14, it was doing same as the F-16 carrying similar loads but at many time the cost.

 

Blacklion213:

So you mean to tell me there where no maintenance nor reliability problem with the F-14 prior to that?

And on the subject of F-16 drone, surprisingly enough, their using many blocks of aircraft still flying combat. I though they where going to use oldest frames but they pick airframes with the most flying hours left AFAIK. So some of the same blocks converted to drone are also being sold to Thailand and being upgraded for the ANG.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nice and all, but this arguing over support and such doesn't really relate to the OP's post of which would win in a WVR encounter.

 

Personally, I don't think it matters anyway, as we don't currently have a flyable F-16 in DCS.

 

If we did, they my money would be on the person in the F-16A within DCS, as by all accounts so far the F-14A wasn't, and from the HB videos doesn't look, easy to fly.


Edited by Buzzles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nice and all, but this arguing over support and such doesn't really relate to the OP's post of which would win in a WVR encounter.

 

Personally, I don't think it matters anyway, as we don't currently have a flyable F-16 in DCS.

 

If we did, they my money would be on the person in the F-16A within DCS, as by all accounts so far the F-14A wasn't, and from the HB videos doesn't look, easy to fly.

 

OP was on a discussion on another site. We also do not have a flyable F-14. All of this comparisons are always pointless, they always have and will. Until F-14 fight F-16 in real life, truly fight we will never know.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...