OK aircraft experts.....The F-15E Strike Eagle vs the F-18F Super Hornet

The F/A-18E/F uses the same AIM-120C-5/7 and AIM-120D as the USAF's F-22, F-15C, and F-16C. Same AIM-9X Block II. The F/A-18E/F flies off of a mobil naval air station called a aircraft carrier, while the F-15E has to find a friendly onshore air base to fly from.

Ever see a F-15E go mach 2.5 with a full load of bombs? Most of the top speeds listed for fighters are with the fighter clean at high altitude with the after burners going. The USAF was excited when the F-100 broke mach 2 in testing, but operationally the aircraft was slow at low altitude which made it a bit of a slug. Top speed over mach 1.8 is very rarely needed. THe powerful engines in the F-15 are for enabling the aircraft to climb quickly at full military throttle so it can perform the interceptor mission, power the aircraft through high g turns. Mach 2.54 is just for sales. Both aircraft are good bombing platforms. The weight of payload isn't much of a requirement with the advent of percision munitions. Neither aircraft flies with a full load of bombs.  One advantage of the Super Hornet over the F-15E is its ability to generate multiple sorties in the same day. The Super Hornet needs two hours of maintance for each hour of flight, the F-15E is considerably longer. The F-35A will beat both since it can supercruise if needed (go super-sonic without afterburners) and be capable of low observable missions.   

Ever seen a Hornet/Super Hornet do Mach 2.5?

Ever seen an F-15 make a night carrier landing?

fermis

I am requesting the highest of fives, right now!!!!

 

hogfanfs

 

 

mississippivol

Yeah, but I drive a Dodge! 

 

 

 

 

 

I hear ya! A Dodge will run circles around a Chevy and Ford!  

 

I am requesting the highest of fives, right now!!!!

mississippivol

Yeah, but I drive a Dodge! 

 

I hear ya! A Dodge will run circles around a Chevy and Ford! Kind of like a F-14 flying circles around a 15 and 18! 

Yeah, but I drive a Dodge! 

LOL! This reminds me of good ol' fashion Chevy vs Ford debate!

Well I have worked on the A,B,C,D,and E models of the F-15. I love the Eagle! I have to pose this question to any SuperBug lover. Has any model of the hornet EVER had an aerial victory while on a bombing mission? I mean at the same time!! Dropping a bomb and getting a kill. NO!!!!!!!!!!! LOL Yes, a mudhen was saving an SAS members bacon by dropping an LGB on the helicopter offloading troops that were trying to find this guy and it hit just as the chopper had lifted off, therefore an aerial victory. Ka-ching!

This is the hornet is more verstile. Hornet can carry almost every airborne weapon in the US inventory, JDAM JSOW MAVERICK HARM HARPOON SLAM CLUSTERS MINES DESTRUCTORS WALLEYE VARIOUS DECOYS etc,  in addition being a refueler and so on. Making it capable of performing many many missions. The EAGLE can't come close. It is limited in air to ground weapons it can carry and be effective.

This is VERSTILE.

Israel hasn't been too happy with the USAF since they were strong armed into buying more F-16C fighters than they wanted. Originally Israel intended to build the Lavi domestically to replace the A-4 and early model Kfir in the light strike and close support rolls.

This link goes to a graphic about a statistic that is important for strike aircraft and shows what the Super-Hornet means for the USN.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/cv-aimpoints.jpg

The F/A-18A/B/C/D and the F/A-18E/F have a very  high avalibility rate, the C,D,E,F models can generate multiple sorties in the same day for a considerable period. The F-14, A-6 and A-7 couldn't. The F-14A/B/D was a hanger hog. The F-14 and the Phoenix (AIM-54C) missile were good for shooting down large bombers (Tu-16, Tu-22M, and Tu-95) at long range, MiG-29 at the same distance? Not so good.

The AWG-9 radar of the F-14A/B was completely analog (yep: vacume tubes). Resolution drops off considerably with range making it difficult to attack anything small and agile at roughly half the radar's range. The F-14D introduced the AN/APG-71 radar. The AN/APG-71 retained the anolog transmitter and receiver of the AWG-9 and replaced all the electronics with the anaolog to digital converter and data processing system from the AN/APG-65 radar used in the F/A-18A/B. The AN/APG-79 AESA radar that is being built in to new Super-Hornets and backfit to the rest is fully digital and provides a high resolution coverage out to about 2/3 the range of the AWG-9 coupled with the new AIM-120D missile gives the Super Hornet a good BVR capability. The AIM-120D is much lighter, more agile, and faster than the AIM-54C "Phoenix" was. The F-14 rarely left the Carrier deck with more than 4 Phoenix missiles, due to landing weight restrictions. If a F-14 has 6 phoenix onboard, it will need to land ashore or else drop two Phoenix into the drink. Any F/A-18 can easily lift and land with six or eight AIM-120D without bumping into weight restrictions. With the increase in the number of Aegis ships in the fleet, more powerful versions of the standard missile and the continued improvement of the E-2C and now E-2D I would say that the USN is as safe fro missile and air attack as it ever has been.   The Super Hornet F/A-18F is within a few hundred pounds of the payload of the the earlier A-6E. Unlike the A-6E if it gets in trouble with an enemy fighter it can switch to fighter mode shoot down the enemy fighter then go on to attack the target.

NO! During the first and second Gulf wars the F-15E was always escorted by F-15Cs. The C's were tasked with "escort" duty and did the Air-to-Air combat. History Channel had a great show in the "Dog Fights" show. Great graphics!

Sorry!

Travis

I love both A/C. But as far as "versatile" goes I would have to go with the F/A-18. It replaced 4 different Navy aircraft for the various roles they played. The list would be (A-6, EA-6, A-7, F-14) It is currently being used as a in air refueler, ASW (shipping not subs), Fighter/Bomber, Electronic warfair, and Air to Air combat. The new engines on the "super hornet" are much improved over the older version and with the addition of a second seat the options are limitless.

The F-15E is a great plane, and a darn good bomb platform. The thrust vectoing engines and intakes are still high tech. To my knowledge though it used only as a fighter/bomber.

I guess it would be all in how you interpret "versatile" and what you need out of the airframe to determine whichis better.

Travis

seasick

Comparing the F/A-18E/F to the F-15E is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. They have different requirements and have to operate in different enviornments.

The superhornet is a shiny F-150 pickup truck that the Navy continues to invest in. The EA-18G just went into full rate production this year. The variants of superhornet will roll out of the production line for many more years.

The Eagle is an older Cadillac that the USAF stopped production in favor of the F-22. When the Korean and Singaporean ordered the F-15, they put in updated capabilities that the Strike Eagle does not have. The USAF is upgrading the 15 too, but at a slower pace. See more detail at Wiki. Don't count the Eagle out anytime soon.

One of the more revealing incident about the Superhornet is the Australian purchase. The current Australian government was deadset against it when they were the opposition. PM Kevin Rudd anounced his support of the Superhornet purchase 3 months into the office in 2008, citing unknown capability unknown to him. The network centric capability, high combat ready rate and low life cycle cost make the Superhornet very competitive in foreign military sales.

Comparing the F/A-18E/F to the F-15E is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. They have different requirements and have to operate in different enviornments.

I disagree with the Israelis not *wanting* the F-22.They are pretty self-sufficient as it stands now. It is widely discussed within the F-16 community that every airplane LM delivers to the IAF gets almost totally disassembled, and reassembled with significant changes made.

However, as it stands now we are claiming we aren't selling the F-22 to any foreign militaries (let me go laugh for a second). When that changes the Israelis will likely come up with the money. The Japanese will likely want to jump in as well.

A few Arab states are likely to show up with their checkbooks out. Hopefully, we will be more reserved in letting them in on the latest and greatest. Let them buy Eurofighters and Rafales lest we have to deal with them in the future.

Also, if you want a spankin' new F-16 you can still get one for a few more years. The production is being moved to Turkey.

The export F-22 will be a different animal according to my sources. Many of the capabilities of the airplane will not be needed by the IAF.. There will be different capabilities needed for the JASDF.

Given our current economic state and the stimulus provided I can see the line re-opening for more USAF F-22s as well as foreign versions sooner rather than later.

As of maybe a year or two ago F-15E model derivatives could still be purchased new. I am fairly sure the tooling is still in place for them. However, this may have changed recently.

There are many cases where nations have chosen the more capable F-15 or the more cost effective F-16 over the F-18. The F-18 is, as in everything else, a compromise in price as well.

The comparison between the F-15E and F/A-18F is kind of interesting.

First the F/A-18F is designed to operate from an aircraft-Carrier. It must have an airframe, and landing gear much stronger than needed on the F-15E. The F-15E has a weight advantage because of this. The arrested landings that AF fighters have hooks for are far less stressful than carrier landings. The F-15E would need to eject any remaining ordinance before landing and would need some work after being landed.

The F/A-18E/F is being upgraded from the AN/APG-73 radar to the AN/APG-79 AESA radar which enhances its performance in air to air and air to ground missions. The F/A-18E/F like the F-15E can be refueled in air which makes both likely to be able to perform needed missions. Since guided munitions have entered service the weight of ordinace on fighters is not as critical as it used to be. The USN is performing strike missions with a pair of hornets or super hornets that they would have used an entire squadron for in the vietnam war era.

The Hornet has excelent maintance and can generate multiple sorties in a day. Compared to aircraft it is likely to face the Super Hornet is superior.

The Su-33 (the Russian carrier version of the Su-27) once touted to be superior to the Hornet is being decomissioned. Operationally the Su-33 has had a much lower payload than originally designed. The Russian Navy is going to switch to a new carrier version of the MiG-29K being developed for the Indian Navy by Sukhoi-MIG corporation.

Israel isn't going to procure the F/A-18 because they can't afford to establish a new supply chain. When the United States killed the Lavi project and forced the IDF to buy more F-16C than it wanted  it ended the close relationship between the IDF and the US arms manufacturers. Israel for instance does not want the F-22 because they can't afford it. Israel also still intends to become self sufficient on munitions and aircraft.   

[quote user="Got Hinomaru?"]

[quote user="F-8fanatic"

 Second, F-15's CANNOT still shoot down a satellite.  The ASAT program was only applied to 20 modified F-15A's, not to the entire fleet, and certainly not to the F-15E.  No other F-15's were ever capable of launching that missile.

[/quote]

  You are correct sir. My bad. This is what I get when I "skim" the information to "remind" myself of the "facts." I humbly beg every one's pardon for passing false information. I am actually rather glad you called me on this because it made me go back and open up some books I havn't looked at in a while. I took a much closer look at the F-18 and what it can do. It can do a LOT. I am still standing by the F-15 but I gotta say I have a much deeper respect for the bug then I did a week ago. In fact, I think the lack of one in the stash is no longer acceptable.

                                                                                  Andrew

[/quote]

LOL that's funny, bcuz that is one plane I DON"T have in my stash. I have 3 F-15's

[quote user="F-8fanatic"

 Second, F-15's CANNOT still shoot down a satellite.  The ASAT program was only applied to 20 modified F-15A's, not to the entire fleet, and certainly not to the F-15E.  No other F-15's were ever capable of launching that missile.

[/quote]

  You are correct sir. My bad. This is what I get when I "skim" the information to "remind" myself of the "facts." I humbly beg every one's pardon for passing false information. I am actually rather glad you called me on this because it made me go back and open up some books I havn't looked at in a while. I took a much closer look at the F-18 and what it can do. It can do a LOT. I am still standing by the F-15 but I gotta say I have a much deeper respect for the bug then I did a week ago. In fact, I think the lack of one in the stash is no longer acceptable.

                                                                                  Andrew

keilau wrote:

squeakie wrote:       The very idea of the term "versatility" leads to nothing but a compromise, and when you add compromise with both planes you will see that one is far less a compromise than the other. gary It is so true. And we do not live in an ideal world. Here are some examples of compromise. When you buy the more expensive aircraft, you get less in number. When you buy the more complex aircraft, you provide more maintainance and get lower MTBF (mean time between failure). When you buy cheap and high performance (on paper) aircraft (aka Russian fighter), you pay a lot more in maintainance and a lot lower combat ready rate. Why did the USAF stop F-22 production at less than 200 and plan over 2000 purchase of the F-35? It is not because of stupidity, the DoD based the decision on OPS analysis. You may not agree with their assumption or conclusion. But the richest Armed Force in the world cannot afford both. The F-15E Strike Eagle vs PLUS the F-18F Super Hornet will provide the security that we need in the forseenable future. Case closed.

Gee.. Let me think.. an F-15E or a flying compromise? I'll take the F-15E.

The F-18 only managed to get off the ground out of pure need. Since it joined the fleet the Navy has surrendered more and more of its ability to project power around the world by pushing more and more tasks handled by better, more capable aircraft off on the Hornet. 

berny13 wrote:

-Neu- wrote:  berny13 wrote: In the air to air roll, the F-15E will eat the F-18F for lunch.  In the air to ground roll, both are pretty equal.  The F-15E can carry more of a payload and carry it a longer distance.  The F-18F is short legged and is limited to how far it can fly.  It can increase its range by reducing its bomb load. The F-15 has almost twice the range as the Super Bug carrying a compatable load. I'm going to be the spoil sport here and say that, I doubt anybody here can say for sure which would be better at an air combat duel, unless they worked for DoD or Boeing (or test flighted both). Although it should be noted the Strike Eagle does have a huge benefit because its a land based fighter over the carrier based one. The F/A-18E/F is likely a more stealthy design however. Where I got my information was from a F-15 instructor pilot stationed at Tyndall.  He flew the F-15C in combat, the F-15E in Alaska and now is an IP at Tyndall.  In the DACT roll against the F-18E/F he has always come out the winner.  The only advantage the F-18 has over the F-15 is it is able to maintain a higher AOA over a longer period of time.  That will only work if you are close enough to read the name tag on the pilot.  A good pilot can over come that advantage if he is prepared to counter act.  The big advantage my neighbor has is he has over 3,000 hours in the F-15 and can make it do anything it was designed to do.  The only aircraft he can't beat with the F-15 is the F-22.  He also told me that flying against the F-16, the outcome depends on pilot skill.  He only wins about two thirds of the fights in DACT flying against the F-16.

squeakie wrote:

The very idea of the term "versatility" leads to nothing but a compromise, and when you add compromise with both planes you will see that one is far less a compromise than the other. gary

It is so true. And we do not live in an ideal world. Here are some examples of compromise.

When you buy the more expensive aircraft, you get less in number.

When you buy the more complex aircraft, you provide more maintainance and get lower MTBF (mean time between failure).

When you buy cheap and high performance (on paper) aircraft (aka Russian fighter), you pay a lot more in maintainance and a lot lower combat ready rate.

Why did the USAF stop F-22 production at less than 200 and plan over 2000 purchase of the F-35? It is not because of stupidity, the DoD based the decision on OPS analysis. You may not agree with their assumption or conclusion. But the richest Armed Force in the world cannot afford both.

The F-15E Strike Eagle vs PLUS the F-18F Super Hornet will provide the security that we need in the forseenable future. Case closed.