While I am no aviation expert, a quick check at Federation of American Scientists website finds:
[ul]
[li]Aircraft == Unit Cost [1998$][/li][li]F-14 == $38 million[/li][li]F-15 == $43 million[/li][li]F-16 == $26.9 million[/li][li]F-18 == $39.5 million[/li][/ul]
These are unit costs over the total program (later units are cheaper than initial ones). Maintenance is not included in these figures. Can anyone cite numbers for maintenance or mission costs?
As I understand it, there were a number of prop aircraft that might have “broken” the sound barrier, although, to my knowledge, none were ever actually recorded as having done so, as it always happened in uncontrolled dives. Compressability frequently locked up the controls in these cases, often casuing fatal wrecks. The Corsair and the Lightning are the two aircraft I most often hear assosciated with this claim.
[hijack]
Thats not entirely true.
While the Cobra (YF-17) did lose to the F-16 in the light fighter flyoff, there were several reasons that the Navy chose it and the AF did not… not the least of which being that the F-17 had 2 engines and the Falcon 1.
There is an awful lot of people accusing the gvt of doctoring figures that make the F/A-18 series more “attractive” over the F-14. A lot of this is because the govt destroyed the F-14 tooling earlier so now there is no choice but to go with 18s for replacement aircraft. I have seen many threads on other boards involving people from the DoD and contractors giving their bit on both sides. They’ve been extremely interesting.
What I picked up at the end of it all - The 18E/F is not worth the cost. The Tomcat in its variants (including Bombcat and the other aborted variants) are very capable aircraft and could almost certainly do the job at least as well as the Hornet and cheaper to boot.
My .02
[/hijack]
Bernse: I’ll take a look at those threads if I can find them.
My comment was not a bottom-line comparison between the F-18 and any other plane, but rather a response to the assertion that the F-18 is a “weak kneed, short-legged, piece of crap” – one that I don’t think is supportable, even if its cost-to-performance ratio is higher than some would like.
I agree that the F-14 is in many respects the more capable plane (and my personal favorite), and I am not familiar with the Bombcat variant, but I don’t think that any Tomcat variant could match either the ground attack or close arial combat competence of the F-18. The F-14 was optimized for long-range interception, and no matter what kind of weapons or new systems you hang on it, it isn’t made to do the variety of tasks that the Hornet can. I do think it’s a mistake to try and replace the Tomcat fleet with Hornets, though. The Phoenix missile system alone would have made keeping Tomcat production alive worthwhile, IMO.
As to operating costs, I found these cost per operating hour figures here:
http://api.hq.faa.gov/economic/742SECT4.PDF
F-16: $1,850-2,201 depending on variant
F-18: $3,023
F-14: $3,988
F-15: $4,332–4,747 depending on variant
Obviously the F-16 is the bargain here, but if it had been adapted for rough carrier operations like the Hornet was, it too would cost more.
Thanks for the name Cobra manoever. A google search turned up
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/migs/planes.html
http://www.russian-gateway.com.au/migs.htm
This page
http://www.royfc.com/links/acft_video_flank.html
claims to have video of the manoevers, but the links come up empty.
Several sites mention that the Su-27 actually first performed the Cobra. Anyone know what a Tailslide is?
One more link
http://www.bushcat.com/mig.html
So, how much are you all willing to pay to fly in a MiG?
(the above post is edited for brevity only)
I won’t argue unit price, nor will I argue looks, but when the A-7 (and KA-7) Corsair went away (replaced by the F/A-18), all of a sudden Texaco duties went through the roof.
Not only were the KA-6’s and S-3B’s (that had been configured for Texaco duty) strained to the limit to support the “Whornets”, but the refueling situation for any decent “chainsaw” situation got out of hand because of F/A-18 fuel state. F-14’s were no problem and didn’t contribute to the problems of juggling all the aluminum.
My only point is this: Short legged TacAir like the Hornet decrease the overall warfighting capability of a CVN. From what I understand about the “all new and improved” version contributes only minimal improvements to the situation.
’Uigi - point taken. I haven’t come across that info before, but I can’t dispute it.
All debates about the aerodynamic or air combat superiority of either the F-16 or F-14 aside, I was greatly amused at an airshow some years ago when the F-14 was still in service and appeared along with an F-16. They were both working airplanes. The F-16 had access panels sealed with crudely applied silicon sealer and a frayed cover on the seat, and the F-14 had large sheet metal drip pans full of kitty litter (sorb all) under it as it sat on the ramp. Into which it was dripping hydraulic fluid.
The Navy ground crew said it was very difficult to keep all the hydraulics for the wing sweep sealed up tight, but the plane had a large reservoir so it wasn’t an operational problem. Kind of like the 40 gallon oil tanks on big round engines, for which the expression was always, if they’re not leaking oil they’re out.
The Air Force guys readily conceded the manuverability advantages of the swing wing, and acknolwedged that it gave the much larger and heavier F-14 response close to that of the much smaller lighter F-16. They couldn’t help themselves about the hydraulic leaks, though, and ragged on the Tomcat drivers that if the Russians ever develpoed a hydraulic fluid seeking missle, the Tomcat guys were in trouble.
Zombies can accelerate vertically - right to the top of the forum.
So if you had a really long treadmill oriented vertically…
Re: Aschrott’s “signature”
“Every tool is at least two tools - one of which is a hammer!” 
As a carpenter, I can attest to the fact that,*** that ***statement is absolutely and unequivocally, CORRECT! 
I know this is a zombie, but here’ s a relevant post to the OP’s question. Most of the answers upthread way back then were fan-boy junk.
(Note this is a very old thread)
Thing with planes, as with most vehicles, is they are built for a specific job. They may excel in one area and be crap in another. Add in cost and maintenance and you have a complex calculation. It is hard to say one plane is better or worse overall. It is easier to say it is better or worse in a particular situation. Whether the cost and effort to maintain that plane makes it all worth it is yet a different calculation.
Also…welcome to the SDMB!
I know it’s a zombie and all, but according to this NASA study (PDF), an F-15 climbing at Mach .80 from sea level will initially burn approximately 1,000 lbs of fuel per minute. You’ve got to add a few thousand pounds to any of the empty weights to account for fuel if you want realistic thrust/weight ratios. Obviously, the weight will decrease as the fuel burns off, but the thrust will decrease significantly with altitude as well.
Also, nobody figured drag into their thrust/weight calculations, which likely adds a few thousand pounds to required thrust…
Edit - what LSLGuy said.
Just a guess, but the old British Lightening was famous for its vertical ascents.
Could that be a plane that could accelerate vertically ?
No.
This English Electric Lightning - Wikipedia has a decent discussion of climb performance. The specs down at the bottom indicate total thrust of 32,000 lbs & a weight ranging from 31000 lbs with no fuel up to 45,000 lbs with full fuel and armament.
As I explain here Fighter jets flying out of commercial civilian airports. - #57 by LSLGuy - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board (linked to above), you need thrust a lot larger than weight to accelerate straight up. No fighter to date from any country really has that capability. Though it makes for cool PR.