So in short, would be nice if you could provide actual instances or tests scenarios that show this @MythicPi
The F-14 has a better sustained turn rate at airspeeds where the pilot isn’t going to be constantly passing out.
The F-15 doesn’t need just 10 minutes of fuel on the deck to pass out at sufficiently high sustained turn rates. Again, at speeds where the F-14 won’t cut you off with a smaller turn radius and higher turn rate the F-15 pilot will be struggling to maintain consciousness. Even then, at rate speeds that high the F-15 is better off trying to utilize that energy to gain altitude at the same time, perhaps a high Yo-yo to try and get on the F-14s six if he hasn’t lost the fight from positioning in the first place with it’s inferior high alpha.
I did not say the F-14B’s TWR is comparable at combat speeds, rather that it is also >1:1 at optimal airspeeds when the claim from y’all was that it wasn’t.
I said the F-15 with full fuel and full missile load is <1:1 and the same goes for the F-14?
Show me the instantaneous turn rate of the F-14 and F-15.
I’ve raised valid arguments, you’ve tried to discredit them as though you have a point but you’ve never actually responded to my initial assertion in the first place. You can keep trying though, I guess.
The AIM-54 had an ~84% kill rate against “supersonic bombers, fighters, and cruise missiles” at the time Grumman posted their ad “The Payoff is Performance” which is well after the SCUD stuff iirc.
1 Like
This is in reference to the AIM-54A.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1078877088087552102/1119830664435478588/image.png?width=1920&height=808
1 Like
That seems to combine cruise missiles with other target types such as bombers and etc which confuses the statistics against cruise missiles alone.
Later antishipping missiles also began to skim at even lower altitudes.
It also doesnt address why the US, France, and many other countries still kept the same designs for their antiship missiles and cruise missiles decades later if missiles became effective at tackling those targets.
So obviously there’s still some limitations to the AIM-54C, how low should it be able to go?
@MythicPi 's graph shoes the F-14 and F-15’s instantaneous rate . Thin line instead of thick line(which is for F-14A, but F-14B should have same instantaneous turn as weight didn’t change significantly). You can see that the F-14’s instantaneous rate is superior.
And again your example is on the deck which is worst-case for this. 10k feet/~3km is a perfectly reasonable place to fight and F-15 will be pulling only 7.5G here.
So your “inferior high alpha” is unsubstantiated and the F-15 should be able to just control the one-circle with its vertical performance.
I didn’t say anything about 1:1 TWR as some magic number. You responded to me as if this was some zinger, we’re not all in some alliance against you where you can claim “gotcha” to one person when it was someone else who said that.
Okay, time for some math.
What is 27000 / 28451?
And what is 28000 / 20057?
The lower 2nd number is the F-15’s gross combat weight.
The upper 2nd number is the F-14’s gross combat weight.
& the first numbers are their combined engine thrust.
I have not seen any tests or documentation for AIM-54 that suggest it has ever missed a low level sea-skimming target of any kind.
You’re going to compare the instant turn rate of two fully loaded jets at an altitude they’d never be forcing a merge at? That’s where you got the assumption that the F-15 has better instant turn rate? And against the F-14A?
I never said anything about an alliance, nor am I making a pretense. Why argue the 1:1 point if it wasn’t your assertion in the first place?
Already you said 84% combined rate for fighters, bombers, and cruise missiles. Why wouldnt the 16% consist of majority being the hardest target types? The ones with the lowest RCS and able to travel at the lowest altitude.
The straight line low-flying cruise missiles are relatively easy targets to hit outside of their small size. I think the hit-rate has more to do with the proximity sensor than the seeker though as it’s usually a head-on engagement type for those targets. (And that was one of the particular upgrades for AIM-54C)
The hard targets would generally be fighter sized targets countering with ECCM and maneuvers or turning around outside the NEZ.
Regarding this graph, the sharp tip and cutoff is due to the G limitation of the instant turn rate. As we know, the F-14 in war thunder is permitted to exceed ~6.5G as shown on your chart. In fact, if it exceeds it sufficiently it can hit a peak AoA of ~77 degrees in certain conditions from low airspeeds. It can throw the nose around, no doubt the F-15 can also but I do not think it will be to that degree, and not with as much stability due to it not having swing wings with massive flaps.
The F-4E as an example, limited to just over 7G for it’s instant turn rate in this chart should pull around 14 deg/s instant at 0.8 mach. I’ve gone in-game and given it more fuel and weight than it would have had in the graph because I can’t be bothered to adjust the fuel setting accordingly… and it can pull nearly 18 degrees of instant turn rate because we’re not limited by a G-force. I also tested it without the combat flaps and got similar results.
Testing the F-14B with similar conditions (weight and armament to the graph)… it’s underperforming at around 16 deg/s where it should be getting nearly 21-22 degrees per second.
@MythicPi Where did you get the graph because if it’s a usable source we may need to bug report the F-14B. Significantly underperforming in instant turn rate with that fuel and armament setting at around 0.65-1 mach.
Neither jet is fully loaded. They’re both in a roughly 1/2 fuel situation. The Tomcat is carting phoenixes, but it is also only carrying 6 missiles so it’s similar to a combat load of sparrows. If you want to argue, sure, grab some diagrams of your own. If we used a reference load with 4 sidewinders and 2000 lbs fuel, the Eagle would be 15% lighter, the Tomcat 19%(32665 lbs and 45046 lbs respectively). So the Tomcat would perform 4% better in instantaneous rate, maybe enough to just edge out the Eagle(4% is just less than half a line on this graph at 20). It is as good as the same.
My argument was always that the F-15’s TWR was superior to that of the F-14B. You inserted all this 1:1 nonsense, I called you out when you did it.
1 Like
Yes duh. How do you think instantaneous rate works? If you removed the g-limit, the lines would just continue up converging to a turn radius line. I am not entertaining whatever new nonsense argument you are going to deploy now. I have responded to many, many posts full of diversions, straw men, and vaporware. Claim away.
1 Like
I simply confused you for the other guy who has no PFP and name started with an A.
The F-14 is sitting at 25,145kg of weight. This would be equivalent to a war thunder load of approximately 45 minutes fuel with the weapons mentioned tacked on. This isn’t exactly “50% internal fuel”.
The F-15 is sitting at approximately 1/2 of it’s max fuel capacity… and nearly 30% less fuel weight than the already heavier F-14 in this case. Yet the F-14 being >20,000 pounds and with a larger quantity of fuel is only a sliver under the instant turn rate of the F-15… cut off only due to the operational G limit of 6.5G or so when equipped with those missiles… How do you expect it to have a higher instant turn rate than a Tomcat that isn’t laden with all those missiles, has no operational G limit, and is utilizing flaps?
If you’re going off the fuel weights in the chart, the listed weight and armament load make those fuel quantities impossible. As an example;
Spoiler
The AIM-120C is around 335 pounds.
The AIM-9X is approximately 186 pounds.
(186 x 2) + (335 x 6) = 2382 pounds.
The empty weight of the F-15C is 28476 pounds.
28,476 + 2,382 = 30858 pounds.
The total weight of the empty aircraft with armaments is approximately 30,858 pounds. It claims 6,115 pounds of fuel for a maximum weight of 38,500 pounds.
38,500 - 6,115 = 32,385. This is 1,527 pounds higher than expected. Where is the extra weight coming from?
To go into detail about the F-14A in this chart…
Spoiler
it claims a weight of 55,436 pounds. 9,720 pounds of fuel. We can subtract these two for a base, and then compare the possible weights of the armament thereafter.
45,716 pounds empty on fuel with 2x AIM-54C, 2x AIM-7F, and 2x “AIM-9”.
Assuming it is an AIM-9L, we can subtract the known weights of the AIM-7F and AIM-9L before speculating about the Phoenix.
AIM-9L - 186.2 x 2 = ~372 pounds
AIM-7F - 510 x 2 = ~1020 pounds
AIM-54C
in-game ~1020.74 (x2 = 2041.5 lbs)
irl? ~ 978-984 pounds? (Outsiders view)… we’ll use the lighter value for the benefit of the doubt.
1956 pounds.
So 45,716 - 372 - 1020 - 1956… 42,368 pounds… somehow it’s 3,331 pounds heavy according to the empty weight of the 1977 SAC… This weight is even higher than the empty weight of the heaviest Tomcat model.
Using the heaviest AIM-54 examples we can shave off an extra 85.5 pounds… doesn’t help us when it’s still 1,000 pounds over the empty weight of the heaviest Tomcat variants.
I’ve come to the conclusion that this chart is likely inaccurate to begin with, using bad data and skewed in favor of the F-15 and Su-27 in regards to the F-14.
Disclaimer: I know the restricted data rules enough. That why i only show only part of NATOPS I have. Will never share full of it.
I am awaring of rules and don’t want to be banned.
Thank you.
I do not think that’s how it works bro. But cool read though thanks
@MiG_23M
LOL! F-14 is not a god.
BTW…
F-15 at 285 knots sea level = <1700 feet.
At 202 knots F-15’s radius becomes ~1304 feet.
At 518 knots F-15’s radius is ~2700 feet.
Idk how yo made 1300ft radius at 200ktas.
At alt 10000ft, F-15C has 11.5 turn rate, and caculating by fomular is:
96.8x202/11.5 = 1700ft radius
Of course if you say at sea level, 14B shows more then 22deg STR and less then 1200ft turn radius btw