Basically both have same engine(F110-GE-100/400), yet Barak II can hit mach 1.2 at sea level which F-14B never reach it.
Difference between those two aircraft is supersonic reheater thrust(Barak II has thrust model of before nerfed one which F-14B in La royal first dev server)
So, i wonder which thrust model is correct?
Barak II or F-14B?
If F-14B is correct(w/ engine limiter) Barak II may cut off its max thrust down to mach 1.1 at sea level. If Barak II is correct, F-14B may rise up its max thrust up to mach 1.2 at sea level.
Their engines are not the same, GE-100 has more thrust than GE-400.
Both are correct.
F-14’s intake channels cause more loss than F-16’s, so F-14’s engines produce less thrust.
Not really, rather F110-GE-400 makes more thrust than F110-GE-100(oh, yes i mean both static thrust and installed thrust that affceted by air channel flow. I’m sorry I wanna show actual “installed” data yet its from TO-1F-16C-1-1 thus i may not upload on this reply neither on forum)
Besides, lack of supersonic thrust issue is not caused by airflow but devs limited its high-speed thrust reasoning somewhat AICS value.
All things equal, GE 400 probably makes more thrust.
But yeah, installed thrust, due to the fact the intakes of F-14 were designed for the engine of the A, the intakes aren’t good enough to tap all the power of the GE 400, so it’s less installed thrust than F-16.
Navy didn’t care tho.
That’s also not the true. As you can see AIAA conference report, though everyone predicted F110-GE-400 would showing less augmentor efficency than F110-GE-100 for air-intake issue(both are shown dot-line) but in fact F110-GE-400 Shows more augmentor efficency than F110-GE-100 helped by 50inch longer air-fuel mixing layer.
Because with new engines pros was much better compare to cons.
Thats why Navy didnt care at all cause GE engines are simply superior in most case.