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

This is one of those debates that could get 100 different opinions from 100 different people.

I will say this though:

The F/A-18 can and has engaged, then shot down another aircraft, and dropped bombs on a target all on the same mission.

The F-15 has yet to accomplish this........so yes, the F/A-18 can 'technically' be said to be the more versatile of the two, especially when you take into consideration the actual meaning of the word "versatile". 

 

 

 

Dave Roof wrote:

This is one of those debates that could get 100 different opinions from 100 different people. I will say this though: The F/A-18 can and has engaged, then shot down another aircraft, and dropped bombs on a target all on the same mission. The F-15 has yet to accomplish this........so yes, the F/A-18 can 'technically' be said to be the more versatile of the two, especially when you take into consideration the actual meaning of the word "versatile".

So a Strike Eagle has never done this?

Strike Eagle - all day long / hands down / no questions.

While the Strike Eagle may be a air superiority fighter modified into a ground attack / strike fighter, it is still a superior aircraft to the "multi role" Super Hornet.

The F-15 was designed with the ethos of being the best of it type & was for a long time the superior air superiority fighter - it still maintains 99% of this capability, with additional strike capability.

On performance the F-15E eats the F-18F with much more power & larger wing area, although the F-18F does have the flexibility of operating from carriers!

I am not sure on the tight in / dogfight performance comparison of these aircraft, the F-15 has the power & flying surface, but the F-18F may suffer less from  AOA limitations ??

I am also not sure on the radar fit, the APG-79 as fitted to the latter F-18F is more advanced than the APG-70 of the F-15E, but is apparently suffering from some pretty serious software issues - which I suppose time will sort out though ??

 

The F-15E is still the horse I would be choosing to ride though. 

Yes, but you are confusing 'versatility' with 'capability'

All points considered, the F/A-18 is more versatile......which is what the originator of this thread said was the issue at hand during his discussion.

 

Dave Roof wrote:

Yes, but you are confusing 'versatility' with 'capability' All points considered, the F/A-18 is more versatile......which is what the originator of this thread said was the issue at hand during his discussion.

What makes it more versatile then Dave? All things considered I do not see how it is more versatile. How am I confusing capability with versatility? I don't see the relation. 

Both are capable aircraft but all things considered I still say the F-15E is more versatile as it excels in all the categories I listed except for maybe radar which I am not sure of. 

Just because the F-18F has seen action that included more roles in one mission than the F-15E may have that does not preclude that it is more versatile. It only shows that it had a chance to prove it's own versatility, not that it is superior to the versatility of the F-15E.

 

They are both built by the same company so why argue. Both have multirole capabilities, the F-15 has more A-A kills and has probably dropped more tonnage in combat since its inception. The F-18 likes it low and fast whereas the F-15 prefers to fly high and fast. In the middle they are close to equal.

 

Lets not forget, it isn't just the aircrafts performance that counts, but the Mk I pilot in the seat flying it. All of those who fly either are damn good or they wouldn't be doing so.

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.

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.

Exactly my feelings Berny. Thanks for confirming that. 

 

HawkeyeHobbies wrote:

They are both built by the same company so why argue. Both have multirole capabilities, the F-15 has more A-A kills and has probably dropped more tonnage in combat since its inception. The F-18 likes it low and fast whereas the F-15 prefers to fly high and fast. In the middle they are close to equal.   Lets not forget, it isn't just the aircrafts performance that counts, but the Mk I pilot in the seat flying it. All of those who fly either are damn good or they wouldn't be doing so.

True Gerald but the question was one of versatility not pilot skill. 

I like the F-18 Super Bug a lot but the F-15E Strike Eagle is still my favorite and I think this debate proves part of why I love it so much. It is arguably the best fighter in the U.S. arsenal and that is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of many experts. 

And it's capable of operating as a tanker and an ECM platform

What makes it more versatile then Dave? All things considered I do not see how it is more versatile.

 

It's ability to launch from, and land on an aircraft carrier.

The Marines fly the F18. Case closed!

bondoman wrote:

And it's capable of operating as a tanker and an ECM platform

 

I forgot about that......good one.

Yes, when the F-15E can launch from an aircraft carrier and refuel another F-15E launched from the same carrier, then you can say it is more versatile than the F/A-18F.

bondoman wrote:

And it's capable of operating as a tanker and an ECM platform

Well an F-15 can shoot down satelites in orbit!

 

As far as ECM, an F-15 can carry ECM pods too. If your talking about the EF-18 Growler, well if the AF was looking for a replacement for the EF-111, I'm willing to bet the AF would consider using the F-15 for that purpose.

 

well, this is all just my opinion, but I will try to support it with some facts.

 First, the Super Bug is a more versatile platform.  The Strike Eagle is designed for air to mud, but can still fight in the air.  The Hornet can fight in the air, drop bombs, conduct air-to-air refueling, drop leaflets, fly photo-recon missions, and now with the new EA-18 variant, it can also fly electronic warfare missions too.  Hands down, the Super Bug wins versatility. 

Someone mentioned engines.  This is really not a good indicator of anything.  The Eagle has more powerful engines, but it also has a max takeoff weight of 15,000 pounds more than the Hornet.  Of course, the F-15E has a higher top speed, but that is seldom used in today's combat. 

The radar and electronics are generally better in the 18.  This is only because the Strike Eagle is an older plane than the Super Bug is.  The upcoming radar refit for the Strike Eagles is to use the same radar as on the F-18F.  But at least for now, the -18 has the edge here.

The Strike Eagle has a fly-by-wire system, but it works WITH the hydraulic control system.  The Hornet has replaced the old hydraulic system entirely with fly by wire quaduple redundant computers. 

 Strike Eagle definitely has better range as well.  But remember, these are not comparable planes.  The Hornet is a multi-role fleet aircraft.  The Strike Eagle was designed for one mission--the deep-penetrate strike.  This is the role that the F-111 used to fill.

I don't recall the Isreali's buying any F-18s. They sure can fly the crap out of those Eagles though...

Regards,

Jeff

HawkeyeHobbies wrote:

bondoman wrote: And it's capable of operating as a tanker and an ECM platform Well an F-15 can shoot down satelites in orbit!   As far as ECM, an F-15 can carry ECM pods too. If your talking about the EF-18 Growler, well if the AF was looking for a replacement for the EF-111, I'm willing to bet the AF would consider using the F-15 for that purpose.

 

No, not the same at all.  Every fighter in the US inventory can carry the same ECM pod that the Strike Eagle can carry.  That is a pod that is used to protect the aircraft carrying it.  That is not at all the same as being an electronic warfare platform that is designed to fly in with a strike force and protect that strike force.  The one and only ECM pod that the -15E can carry is the AN/ALQ-131 Self Protection ECM pod. 

 

Oh, and the F-15E cannot shoot down a satellite.  The ASAT program was cancelled in 1988, the same year that the first production F-15E was put into service.

Good discussion.  I have enjoyed reading your thoughts.  I wish I had a constructive comment, but I only worked on the F-15 C/D models, never the Strike Eagle. :)

I think something that has been overlooked here is that the needs of the airforce vs. the navy are very diffrent and i'm not sure that you can "fairly" compair the versitility of the two aircraft.  The most imporant thing to remember about the navy is that they've only got so much room on the carrier.  So an aircraft like the F-18 is ideal for them.  Out of one airframe you've got your fighter, your strike, your refueler, your electronics warfair, and soon your antisubmarine missions all covered.  The airforce doesn't need for the strike eagle to be a refueler, or an electronic warfair platform, so you really can't compair the two on these points.  Likewise why would the airforce need to find and kill submarines (that's what the navy's for ).  So that too we can't really compair.  The only two roles we can compair the two on are the air to air and air to ground abilities.  And if we are talking purely on versitility then they are both really the same.  At the end of the day they are each the best aircraft in our inventory for their respective branches.  Yes i believe the navy traded some performance in favor of a platform that could fill more roles, the airforce not constriced by the limits of the flight deck has the better fighter, and maybe the better strike aircraft. 

 Just my two cents....

 

 

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.

The Bug/Super Bug was designed from the start as a carrier-borne aircraft and therefore never needed to have long legs. The Strike Eagle will get down in the dirt as well were they actually prefferred to be, not high. It was much better for the Strike Eagle in the wagonruts than the Bug, the Strike Eagle has terrain-following radar which can be coupled to the autopilot for 'hands-off' low level flying. Does the Super Bug have that? Don't think so. I used to work on them so kind of biased, but still hands down my choice regardless.

MikeV wrote:

Someone told me on the internet that the F-18 was more versatile than the F-15E to which I say bull! This young man who told me this obviously is incorrect as far as I am concerned. The only way the F-18 is more "versatile" is it's ability to land on a carrier and be deployed anywhere in the world whereas the F-15E would have to refuell with a KC-135 to get around the world.  Without researching it I think the F-15E has a better rate of climb, more powerful engines, a heavier bomb load, better radar and it can fly back to base with one wing missing as the Israeli's showed us that! Are my assumptions above correct? And please be subjective whether you like one aircraft more than the other. Thanks

The only way to have the F15 come out on top in a VERSATILE comparison is change the adjective- versatile to= superiority aircraft.

Bottom line...versatile.. the F18 can cat and back, the f15 can't.

  Let's remember that Capability = Versatility. The more things an aircraft is capable of doing, the more versitile it is.

  If the F15E cannot land on a carrier, why does it have a tail hook?

  All F15s were wired to carry air to ground ordnance and still are but the a/b/c did not have the software fitted to performe this mission.

  The F15E is a fighter that has been modified to perform a primary attack role. Not the other way around. On an air superiority mission I'll take an F15E loaded for bear with AAMs over an F18 every time. It can fly farther, longer, higher, faster, heavier and look cooler doing it. I think it's pretty obvious that the F18 has the advantage in a close, guns only, traditional dog fight.

  The F-15 is still capable of shooting down a satelite. The aircraft are still wired for the missile and therefore can still perform the mission. If the program is still active or not is not the point.

  Getting a kill after a bomb run doesn't make you versatile, it makes you lucky. B-17, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32 got kills before, during, and after bomb runs. I wouldn't call them versatile. I am not saying that the Hornet is not because it is. This was just an example of right place, right time.

  Show me an F18 that can do a Viking Departure.

 

                                                          Andrew

OK,

IS the F15 capable of taking off from an aircraft carrier?

The blues do a nice show in the bug.

That hook  is for arrested landings at AF fields equiped with a catch line/lines CK.

I'm done.

berny13 wrote:

The Bug/Super Bug was designed from the start as a carrier-borne aircraft and therefore never needed to have long legs.

   Actually, the Hornet was originally designed by Northrop as the YF-17 to compeet with the General Dynamics YF-16 in a USAF contest for an ACF light fighter. So it was originally designed to a USAF specification, not as a carrier aircraft. It was modified by McDonnell Douglas for carrier use and the Navy held trials for it's new ACF and picked the Hornet.

 

                                             Andrew

Don't forget F-15's are prone to snapping in half. :) But even with that said. I would choose the F-15. I watched an F-22 and a F-15 go after each other from my back porch and it was impressive.

F-111 PIGS RULE!!!!!!!

If I had the fantasy flightline, and I knew how to fly, I'd take the EE Lightning up for a spin.

First introduced in 1959, it has the same rate of climb, the same top speed and only slightly more wing loading than your precious Eagle. It's Avons have the same thrust in afterburner as those big Pratts in the -15.

One hot aircraft.

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.

There is one major benefit for the Rhino which few people realize; it was designed during the late 1990s to be highly upgradable over its service life. In the 1990s people realized that electronics were the next generation of warfare; the Revolution of Military Affairs as it was called. Fighters from the 1980s didn't have this benefit, their design was more static compared to their successors. From its outset, the F/A-18E/F was intended to "grow," and adopt new technologies and roles. That includes major modifications like the EA-18G Growler as well as smaller spirals that introduce alterations to almost all the major systems. one example is upgrading of the ALQ-165 defense system (a fairly standard 1990s system) with the far more developed ALQ-214. Its avionics architecture can be easily altered to add new capabilities and the like. These incremental updates are critical for survivability and versatility and can't be underestimated.

Dave Roof wrote:

This is one of those debates that could get 100 different opinions from 100 different people. I will say this though: The F/A-18 can and has engaged, then shot down another aircraft, and dropped bombs on a target all on the same mission. The F-15 has yet to accomplish this........so yes, the F/A-18 can 'technically' be said to be the more versatile of the two, especially when you take into consideration the actual meaning of the word "versatile".

This has happened on exactly one occasion, the opening day of Desert Storm and was F/A-18Cs, not the E/F. In the nearly 20 years of combat ops since then the only other plane that may come close are some F-16s over the Balkans during the 1999 Kosovo campaign. The F-15E has yet to be challenged in the air air to show if it has this capability or not.