Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet  
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

Why does a navalized f-15 eagle isn't an option for the navy instead of super hornet?

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBattleborgcube From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Why f-15N ? Why not a f-22N?

User currently offlineSoren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Hi.

I think the general idea is that "an aircraft that has not been designed for carrier use from the beginning will never be a good naval aircraft." Thats the way it has been. One of the reasons is that a lot of modifications has to be made on the aircraft - stonger landing gear, stronger overall fuselage ect. So it would be almost as much work converting the F-15 to naval use as it would be upgrading the Hornet (if the Super Hornet is better than the F-15 is another discussion which I wont enter  Smile/happy/getting dizzy ).

As far as I can remember the US has never converted a land based aircraft to naval use. They have landed a few on carriers just to see if it could be done.

The F-111 was origianlly thought as a joint air force/navy plane, but the navy pulled out because the F-111 was no good on a carrier, and build the F-14 instead (which I for one is glad they did - I like them both  Smile).

The Russians have converted some of the MiG-29 and Su-27 versions to carrier use. As far as I know it has not reduced the performance of the aircrafts. So it can be done - although russian aircrafts have always been build solid as hell.

Regards
Søren Augustesen
-- Any spelling errors in the above text is made on purpose to reduce readability.......


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1636 times:

The navalised Migs and Sus have less range because of greater weight and less space for fuel (due to folding wings).
They may also be slightly slower and/or less agile because of the larger dry weight.

The Russians had an advantage in their aircraft in that they needed no extra strong nosegear to survive catapult takeoffs (this is probably a major reason they decided to go without catapults, as they were originally considered).
The gear on Russian fighters is generally stronger than that of US aircraft because they have always been designed with unpaved fields in mind.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1630 times:

Yes su-27k & mig-29kare a proves that great aviation aircraft could be great in the navalized vesion.


So probably this was some shity politician decision.--
Slobodan
Any spelling errors in the above text is made on purpose to reduce readability.......



User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1623 times:

Sure man sure.But please answer the original thread.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1620 times:

A naval Eagle was proposed by MDD in the early 70's, with the F-14's AWG-9/Phoenix missile system.
Soren-a gave the reasons why it was undesriable, and the USN were commited to F-14's.
The naval version of the ATF programme, which led to the F-22, was dropped at an early stage of the progamme.
Costs probably, at the time the USN were expecting to get lots of F-14D's, and further developed Tomcat 21's to follow.
Now the USN's mission has changed, the threat from squadrons of cruise-missile armed Soviet Naval Aviation bombers has gone. So a direct replacement for the F-14 has different requirements.
Around half of a US carriers F-18E aircraft will be two-seaters, as well as having advantages for strike missions in a high-threat ECM-heavy mission, it will take over the fleet defence role.
Most of them will have a new electrically-scanned radar to replace the early APG-73 sets inherited from the F-18C/D's.
They can carry a heavy AMRAAM load, not a direct replacement for the F-14's Phoenix missiles, as I said the extreme-range part of that missiles mission has gone.
The single-seat F-18E will be almost as capable for the air-defence mission, many don't like the F-18E, and mourn the loss of the F-14, but reliability, cost and flexability are the watchwords today, and USN has a lot of ageing aircraft to replace.
The F-22N would be costly and take a long time to reach the squardrons, it may have been desirable not to have dropped the NATF, a few on a carrier would greatly enhance the USN's 'first day of the war' air superiority capability, but the chance was lost.


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Thanks for the datailed replies.
Slobodan


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

VF-14 and VF-41 are turning in their F-14As within a few weeks time. VF-14 is receiving brand new F/A-18Es and VF-41 will be presented with F/A-18Fs. I believe that the majority of F-14 squadrons will receive the F model while F/A-18C squadrons will receive the E model. While this marks the first F-14 squadrons to convert over the the Super Hornet, the F-14 B and D models will continue to fly until 2010. Right now only A model F-14 squadrons are transitioning. I believe that VFA-97 a F/A-18A squadron is set to convert to the E model also.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1544 times:

LETS STAY to the topic
F-14 2000 would be better plaine than f...- 18 suparhornat

Any1 who talks bullshit above is definitly american


User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

Excuse me? What are you saying about American's?

User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

just kidding  Smile Smile Smile

User currently offlineVisage From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

"an aircraft that has not been designed for carrier use from the beginning will never be a good naval aircraft."
That's BS Rafale is great both for the army and navy.
And you already mentioned su-33 and mig-27K
Sophie


User currently offlineSoren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

As far as I know the Rafale was meant to do both from the beginning and so the naval version were designed with strong landing gear etc.

Regards
Søren Augustesen


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1487 times:

That is correct, the Rafale was designed from the beginning for both. To the best of my knowledge, the other models have not faired as well as hoped in the tip of the sword area known as "carrier aviation". An example of an aircraft that made it in an Air Force but not in the Navy was the F-111. It just couldn't cut the mustard on the carrier. Its death brought about the F-14 Tomcat that from the beginning was designed for carrier operations.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet
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...
Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet posted Wed Oct 24 2001 14:57:28 by Fireblade
Flight Path Vs. Pitching Deck posted Mon Feb 19 2007 02:04:30 by Vzlet
F-22A Vs F-14 Which One Sound Better? posted Mon Feb 12 2007 17:33:07 by 747400sp
Chengdu J-10 Vs Aidc F-CK-1C posted Sun Jan 7 2007 00:54:21 by DEVILFISH
E3C/D Vs Wedgetail 737 posted Fri Dec 8 2006 11:10:29 by CHRISBA777ER
Presidential Helicopters, Shipping Vs Ferrying posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:01:14 by Boeing Nut
Naval Air Museum F-14 Sim posted Sat Oct 7 2006 14:38:40 by TedTAce
Replacement For The Superhornet posted Fri Sep 29 2006 17:50:02 by 747400sp
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer
Fail-Safe Vs Dr.Strangelove posted Fri Sep 22 2006 19:30:52 by B741

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format