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

MikeV wrote:

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.

The basic airframe of the F15 has NEVER EVER been shot down by another aircraft. The basic design of the wings alone lead it into the airstrike capability. Yet when striped down it can do very well against any plane on this planet except maybe the F22. You can't say that for the F18 airframe. Sure it would do well, but no where close to the F15. Might add here that the F15 is probably the last plane built (unless it might be the SU27) that can sustain acceleration in a vertical climb. To be exact the F15 with a 300 yard roll out is faster to 100,000 feet than the Apollo Moon Rocket! It was untill the advent of the F22; the US military's premier CAP fighter. How good it is in the air to ground I can't say positively, but it apparently gets the job done very well. (I'm still an A6 flying dump truck fan)

      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

berny13 wrote:

Older aircraft have restrictions placed on them and that is why the retirement of the F-15 was speeded up.  Tyndall AFB will loose all of their F-15 early next year and at nearby Eglin AFB has retired all of their F-15's.

simpilot34 wrote:

IHATEALASKA wrote: 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. OMG THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPRESSIVE!!!!!!!!!! WELL???!!!! WHO WON???????!!!! F-15s are not 'prone' to breaking in half as mentioned by someone before. I only ever saw one that way, and that was only because a mechanical main gear rotation link broke on landing. The offending strut snapped to a 90 degree perpindicular position to the runway and flung the aircraft off the runway. The aftermath had snapped the forward fuse just aft of the cockpits. Obviously the weak point that saved the pilots, but by no means are they 'prone' to breaking up.

Actually a F-15 did break in half inflight.  It broke just aft of the cockpit during a DACT mission.  Because of that all F-15A/B/C/D aircraft were grounded until an inspection for cracks could be performed.  Several aircraft were found with cracks and a DEPOT team was sent in for repair of the aircraft.  The more hours on the aircraft the more chance of cracks forming go up.  Older aircraft have restrictions placed on them and that is why the retirement of the F-15 was speeded up.  Tyndall AFB will loose all of their F-15 early next year and at nearby Eglin AFB has retired all of their F-15's.  

berny13 wrote:

The reason the F-18 nose gear is beefed up is for Cat launch.  A F-15 could land on a carrier and the LDG could take the stress.  The tail hook could also take the stress as I am sure many F-15 have made hot landings and engaged the barrier cable.  The F-15 has the power to make a take off from a carrier but not a cat launch as it has no attachment on its gear for a hookup.  A Cat launch would rip the nose gear off of a F-15.  Clear the deck, give it enough room to get up to speed and it could get off of a carrier.

I garuntee that an F-15 could get off a clear deck of a modern super carrier without a cat launch! It might dip off the bow, but it would do it! After a 1000+ ft roll at full AB it would be pretty d*** close to flying speed!!

simpilot34 wrote:

F-15s are not 'prone' to breaking in half as mentioned by someone before. I only ever saw one that way, and that was only because a mechanical main gear rotation link broke on landing. The offending strut snapped to a 90 degree perpindicular position to the runway and flung the aircraft off the runway. The aftermath had snapped the forward fuse just aft of the cockpits. Obviously the weak point that saved the pilots, but by no means are they 'prone' to breaking up.

From the Wikipedia article on the F15:

Structural defects All F-15 aircraft were grounded by the U.S. Air Force after a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C came apart in flight and crashed on 2 November 2007. The newer F-15E fleet was later cleared for continued operations. The U.S. Air Force reported on 28 November 2007 that a critical location in the upper longerons on the F-15C model was suspected of causing the failure, causing the fuselage forward of the air intakes, including the cockpit and radome, to separate from the airframe. F-15A through D-model aircraft were ordered grounded until the location received more detailed inspections and repairs as needed. The grounding of F-15s received media attention as it began to place strains on the nation's air defense efforts. The grounding forced some states to rely on their neighbors' fighter jets for air defense protection, and Alaska to depend on Canadian Forces' support. On 8 January 2008, the USAF Air Combat Command (ACC) cleared a portion of its F-15A through D-model fleet for return to flying status. It also recommended a limited return to flight for units worldwide using the affected models. The accident review board report was released on January 10, 2008. The report stated that analysis of the F-15C wreckage determined that the longeron did not meet drawing specifications, which led to fatigue cracks and finally a catastrophic failure of the remaining support structures and breakup of the aircraft in flight. In a report released on 10 January 2008, nine other F-15s were identified to have similar problems in the longeron. As a result of these problems, General John D. W. Corley stated that "the long-term future of the F-15 is in question." On 15 February 2008, ACC cleared all its grounded F-15A-D fighters for flight pending inspections, engineering reviews and any needed repairs. ACC also recommended release of other U.S. F-15A-D aircraft.

So maybe not 'prone' but it's happened and it's a concern. There is no corresponding defect section on the F18.

 

Milairjunkie wrote:

Berny, Could the F-15s gear really take a hard carrier landing - if it could, how many would it survive. I understand the point on the front gear because of the load on it from the cat, but is the rear gear sturdy enough & dampened enough to take the load & to stop it well & truly "bottoming out"?

It couldn't do it day in and day out, but yes it could make a carrier landing and survive.  The hook is strong enough to take the shock and the gear could also take the shock of a carrier landing.  I have seen some F-15's land on a hard runway and slam down so hard I thought it would drive the gear through the top of the fuselage.  Not all runway landing are soft and I am sure more than one F-15 has slammed down on a runway.  A carrier landing would be nothing more than a F-15 making a barrier landing.  When making an emergency landing using the barrier the F-15 comes in hot and fast and does it all the time.

IHATEALASKA wrote:

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.

OMG THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPRESSIVE!!!!!!!!!! WELL???!!!! WHO WON???????!!!!

F-15s are not 'prone' to breaking in half as mentioned by someone before. I only ever saw one that way, and that was only because a mechanical main gear rotation link broke on landing. The offending strut snapped to a 90 degree perpindicular position to the runway and flung the aircraft off the runway. The aftermath had snapped the forward fuse just aft of the cockpits. Obviously the weak point that saved the pilots, but by no means are they 'prone' to breaking up.

Berny,

Could the F-15s gear really take a hard carrier landing - if it could, how many would it survive. I understand the point on the front gear because of the load on it from the cat, but is the rear gear sturdy enough & dampened enough to take the load & to stop it well & truly "bottoming out"?

Would the F-15s hook really be capable of taking the strain of F-15 touching the deck at power to a standstill in a couple of seconds? Its just hard to imagine an F-15 surviving a no flare, hard & full power on contact landing.

I dont dispute what you say, I am just interested.

The reason the F-18 nose gear is beefed up is for Cat launch.  A F-15 could land on a carrier and the LDG could take the stress.  The tail hook could also take the stress as I am sure many F-15 have made hot landings and engaged the barrier cable.  The F-15 has the power to make a take off from a carrier but not a cat launch as it has no attachment on its gear for a hookup.  A Cat launch would rip the nose gear off of a F-15.  Clear the deck, give it enough room to get up to speed and it could get off of a carrier.

The F-15 would have to land on a carrier before it could fly from one. I would imagine that it would be wiser to land an F-15 gear up on a carrier to save the landing gear being wrecked & pushed through the fuse, that is before the emergency hook was ripped out of its *** & before it slid seawards over the bow in an expensive fireball.

Neither the hook, gear or structure of the F-15 are suitable - check the pics. Still prefer the F-15 though!

Front F-15 + F-18;

 

Rear F-15 + F-18;

 

-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. 

GO AIR FORCE  BEAT NAVY!!!

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

 

Two things--

The tail hook is for the MOREST system, it's a safety measure.  USAF fields have an arresting cable on the runways.  This is to stop the plane for a safe landing if there are mechanical difficulties, weather problems, or battle damage.  The F-15 has not even been flown from a carrier, as it was never designed to do it and doesnt have any capability to be hooked to a catapult.

 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.

going back to the original question, as Dave Roof correctly points out that the F-18 is more versatile than the F-15, but the F-15 is by way & far the more capable than the F-18.

With regards to the F-18 being more available & flexible as it is on a mobile airfield - this is only true if the mobile airfield is in the correct place at the correct time!

I say in an ideal world - stuff versatility!!! Versatility is what has taken us from a carrier deck covered with such airborne miracles as the F-4, F-8, F-14, A-4, A-6, A-7, EA-6B, RA-5C, S-3 & a couple of twin props........... to the F-18 & a couple of twin props - as an aircraft lover I know which I would choose (ideal world, budgets aside).

Where as most of us have had the luxury of being able to see, hear & read about all these amazing aircraft while still a reality, future generations are going to have to suffer the massacre & watch a couple of "versatile" A/C. Give it a few decades & the variation of combat aircraft in our skies is going to be an F-18/F-35 alike, the US only F-22, a possible a euro consortium multirole, possible a couple of Russian multiroles, possibly a multirole Swede & possibly a multirole from China (not that anyone will see it) - that is 3 > 7 hardcore combat A/C (go back a few decades & there was more variation on the average US carrier deck)? At the moment we have the luxury of having a few overdue for retirement "oldies" still flying, but the continual upgrades wont allow them to resist the gate guard post forever.

Versatility = bad day for the A/C enthusiast = more profit for the A/C manufacturer (how many are left).

 

Bondo - correct on the EE lightning, supercruise in service 46 years before the "holy grail"!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

  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

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.

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.

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....

 

 

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. :)

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.

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

Regards,

Jeff

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.

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.