Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Was The F-15 Built.  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3588 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6214 times:

Why was the F-15 built when the F-14 and the F-111 was all readily in service. Both the USN and USAF was using the F-4 way could the USAF use the F-14.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6207 times:

There was enormous interservice rivalry at the time.
The F-14 was also an older design, which was overweight for what the airforce wanted.
The Airforce spec also stated a single seat fighter, and longer time between maintenance than what the Navy had got with the F-14 (which was more than they bargained for).
The cost of the F-14 was also higher than what the AF wanted to pay.

F-111 had failed as a fighter, it had been originally intended to be a bomber for the airforce AND a fighter for the Navy (who in the end bought the F-14 instead).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6201 times:

Plus at the time, the US thought that the Soviet Mig-25 was just as superior, with composite materials, a high Vmax, and such...until it turned out to be a dragster only designed to catch up with a SR-71/XB-70 type aircraft, and attempt to shoot it down.

I think for attack/fighter/interceptor aircraft the Mig-25 "Foxbat" still holds the altitude and speed records. Either that of that special F-104 fitted with a rocket beat the altitude, I dono.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3564 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6170 times:

German Wikipedia states the following:

Parallel dazu beteiligte sich die US-Luftwaffe anfangs an der Entwicklung der Grumman F-14 Tomcat der US-Marine, die genau die Aufgaben übernehmen sollte, für die die Luftwaffe das TFX entwickelte. Man zog sich aus dem Tomcat-Projekt zurück, als sich langsam abzeichnete, wie die endgültige Tomcat aussehen würde (sehr stabil, um die hohen Belastungen bei Trägerlandungen auszuhalten, und unflexibel in der Avionik - die US-Luftwaffe bewies damals enorme Weitsicht).

Parallel to this the USAF also was involved in the development of the F-14, which was meant to do exactly what the TFX project intended to do. The Airforce went out of the Tomcat project when it became obvious how the final tomcat was meant to look like (very stable to cope with carrier landings, very unflexible in terms of avionics - the US Air Force showed a lot of far sight that time)

Of course, Wikipedia always should be regarded with caution, but I guess this article isn't wrong...


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13186 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6139 times:

Vietnam experience too, the AF wanted lots of power, plenty of agility, internal gun, as many AAM's as F-4.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6114 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Two different airplanes.

The F-14 was designed with the USN specifically in mind, and their desire was for a long range interceptor.

The USAF wanted a dogfighter with high speed capability and extreme (for the day) maneuverability. The Eagle was exactly what the Air Farce wanted...and it certainly proved itself out both with us and others.

The F-14 was the greatest interceptor ever built, and it's still flying for another little while albeit as a bomber and recon aircraft, however it had limited exposure to combat. It would probably have done it's designed job (to shoot down Soviet bombers and cruise missiles at long distances from the fleet) very well.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6093 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 2):
I think for attack/fighter/interceptor aircraft the Mig-25 "Foxbat" still holds the altitude and speed records. Either that of that special F-104 fitted with a rocket beat the altitude, I dono.

The MiG-25 and F-104N (rocket assisted) fighters both achieved altitudes of over 100,000'... but only in zoom climbs. That is why the SR-71 holds the altitude record, because of its 85,000'+ ceiling in level flight. Much as the MiG-25 was capable of Mach 3+, but not continous and the engines then had to be replaced.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineLurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6076 times:

The later MIG-25B does not need to replace its engines after a MACH-3 flight only the A models do as they are limited to MACH 2.8.

As was explained by the Russian MIG 25 Pilot who defected to Japan and later America as the record high speed flight the USAF recorded on RADAR in Japan was an accident.

Where the MIG pilot got his aircraft in a Shallow dive by mistake and by the time he tried to correct it was going over MACH-3 and had destroyed both engines SO he was basically gliding home.

The Iranian Air force used to be unable to chase down the Russian Airforce MIG-25Bs that crossed into there Airspace even with the F-14 phoenix missile combination!


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6060 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 2):
Plus at the time, the US thought that the Soviet Mig-25 was just as superior, with composite materials, a high Vmax, and such...until it turned out to be a dragster

 checkmark If you haven't already or you get the chance, see the episode in the "Wings" series: "Wings Of the Red Star" on the Foxbat. It details this quite well.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

The F-15 was developed and fielded as an interceptor and was conceived because of the Mig-25. Plain, simple and factual answer for you.

-Check


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5548 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Why Was The F-15 Built.

Too kick ass!!!!  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5240 times:

In the post-McNamara defense administration there was an effort to shy away from cross-service standardization. The F-4 served well during it's career. The USAF wanted their own design, and so did the USN. For a brief period of time, the F-14A was considered by the USAF, and underwent operational evaluation. I did get to see a picture of an F-14 in USAF markings! The F-15 was contemplated by the USN as the "Seagle". The most I ever seen of that was a concept drawing. I would image that complications in modifying the wing for carrier duty would sacrifice the Eagle's great range.
I think both aircraft would have performed exceptionally in whatever role they were found.


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5064 times:

Quoting Lurch (Reply 7):
the Russian MIG 25 Pilot who defected to Japan and later America

That would be Viktor Belenko.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Was The F-15 Built.
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Was The F-111 Not Called The B-111 posted Fri Feb 3 2006 19:40:15 by 747400sp
Why Was The OV-10 Bronco Retired? posted Mon Mar 31 2003 00:27:19 by CX747
Why Was The A-6 Intruder Retired? posted Sun May 5 2002 15:11:32 by AFC_ajax00
Is The F-22 Necessary, Why Not Newer F-15? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 06:15:08 by ERAUMcDlover
Why Is The Phantom A Twinseater? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 23:31:58 by TheSonntag
When Was The Last KC-135A Rengined posted Sun Mar 12 2006 19:38:24 by 747400sp
How Does The F-15 Stack Up Agains New Aircraft? posted Fri Mar 3 2006 20:48:38 by CX747
Why Hasn't The B52 Been Reengined? posted Sat Oct 22 2005 20:02:20 by Highpeaklad
What Are Those "Pods" On The F-15? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 03:44:13 by AnMCOSon
Blackburn Buccaneer: Why Was It So Popular. posted Fri Jun 10 2005 20:08:35 by DIJKKIJK

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format