Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-15 "Seagle"  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7440 times:

Why didn't the Navy take the F-15 Seagle, which was a modified F-15 with a stronger undercarriage, arrestor hook, and such?

Just curious as the F-15 had very good low-speed performance, I think it carried more fuel as well.

Andrea Kent

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN74jw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7374 times:

The USN already had the F-14 by that point in time. Depending on whom you talk to, why would you want an F-15 when you have the F-14?

User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7322 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
Why didn't the Navy take the F-15 Seagle, which was a modified F-15 with a stronger undercarriage, arrestor hook, and such?

Just curious as the F-15 had very good low-speed performance, I think it carried more fuel as well.

The additional weight which would have been added as a result of structural beef up would have diminished the F-15s performance. I believe that was why General Dynamics wasn't able to sell the Navy on a carrier based F-16 as well.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7254 times:

Quoting N74jw (Reply 1):
why would you want an F-15 when you have the F-14?

I don't know, maybe just to have a better airplane?

The kill ratio for the F-14 is; 14:2 (it is thought 2 IIAF F-14s were air to air kills during the Iran/Iraq war)

The kill ratio for the F-15 is; 105:0

This does not count either type shoot down by ground fire (F-14 about 6 to 8, F-15 is 4, all F-15Es).


User currently offlineN74jw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7211 times:

Like I said, it all depends on how you feel. We know what side TopBoom is on...

Those stats are not exactly valid. The F-15 has a larger user base and has been in more conflicts than the F-14. US F-14s dominated their adversaries at every turn.

F-15: USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia
F-14: USA, Iran


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30388 posts, RR: 84
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7178 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The F-15 could not operate the AGM-120 Phoenix, so that alone would have likely killed the idea.

At the time, the USN expected to be facing waves of Soviet cruise missiles, not waves of Soviet fighters. So the F-14 was far more important and valued for her capability as a "missile sled" then as a dogfighter.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13147 posts, RR: 78
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7170 times:

The USN still wanted a AIM-54 missile/AWG-9 weapon sytem combination, for defence against large scale attacks by Soviet bombers and missiles.
It had been botched with the F-111B, so they designed a better platform for it, the F-14.

So aside from making major modifications to a land based design, like the F-15, you've also got to shoehorn in a whole new radar system (and any Navy F-15 would be a twin seater due to this), as well as intergrating the large AIM-54 missile on an aircraft not designed for it.

The history of adpating land based aircraft for carrier use, is not a happy one.
Even a much more simple type, like Spitfire to Seafire, was not ideal.
Anti corrosion protection, ensuring no avionic interference with ship based systems, a complete re-design of the F-15's undercarriage, differences in the approach, a beefed up structure-carrier landings take it out of aircraft, modifcations for catapult launch.
F-15 was a big bird, not designed to fit a carrier hangars, developing a folding wing is just the obvious change here, there would be many more.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7168 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
The kill ratio for the F-14 is; 14:2 (it is thought 2 IIAF F-14s were air to air kills during the Iran/Iraq war)

The kill ratio for the F-15 is; 105:0

I think this has much less to do with the inherent capabilities of the airframe and more to do with the particular missions of the airframe. The fact is that the F-14 never really engaged its intended enemy, whereas the F-15 did. Much of that had to do with the theaters each was employed in.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7133 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
The F-15 could not operate the AGM-120 Phoenix, so that alone would have likely killed the idea.

Uh, AIM-54 Phoenix. The AIM-120 is the AMRAAM.



War Eagle!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7101 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
I don't know, maybe just to have a better airplane?

The kill ratio for the F-14 is; 14:2 (it is thought 2 IIAF F-14s were air to air kills during the Iran/Iraq war)

The kill ratio for the F-15 is; 105:0

This does not count either type shoot down by ground fire (F-14 about 6 to 8, F-15 is 4, all F-15Es).

Try reading IRANIAN F-14 TOMCAT UNITS IN COMBAT by Osprey Press. The kills made by IIAF F-14 units are more than what is usually thought in the West.

Quite frankly trying to compare which is the better aircraft by the kill ratio without looking at the conflicts they were involved is a bit disingenuous. In the case of kills made by Israeli F-15's you have to remember the quality of the pilots. Pilot for pilot the Syrians were outmatched. Add to that a superior aircraft the end result was almost a foregone conclusion. My guess is that if the IAF were flying F-14's the kill ratio would have been the same. With USAF F-15's in the first gulf war it was pretty much the same situation.

Compare that to the IIAF during the Iran-Iraq War. Overnight their supply of spare parts was cutoff and shortly there after Saddam decided to cross the border. Along with the spares issues quite a few of Iran's best fighter pilots fled the country after the revolution. Those that stayed were thrown in jail or hounded by the Revolutionary Guard. Add the stress of constant war for almost eight years it should not be a surprise that they took a loss or two. Wonder if the F-15 would have been invincible in similar circumstances.

When it comes right down to it both aircraft did an outstanding job for their respective services.

[Edited 2007-10-17 16:17:14]

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30388 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Da man (Reply 8):
Uh, AIM-54 Phoenix. The AIM-120 is the AMRAAM.

Thanks for the catch.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4798 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7006 times:

Why would they when they the superior F-14 already?


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6982 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 11):
Why would they when they the superior F-14 already?

I assume you meant "when they had the superior F-14". If that is the case, boy do you need some educating. Either that or you're just  stirthepot  .


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3460 posts, RR: 47
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6920 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
Why didn't the Navy take the F-15 Seagle, which was a modified F-15 with a stronger undercarriage, arrestor hook, and such?

Just curious as the F-15 had very good low-speed performance, I think it carried more fuel as well.

1. F14 was an INTERCEPTOR with air superiority capability.
2. F14 was designed/built/delivered PRIOR to F15 (was never an option for USN).
3. F15 is an air superiority FIGHTER with interceptor capability (<100nm radar vs. 150nm radar, etc.).
4. F15 could be "navalized" but at SIGNIFICANT performance reduction (same as F16... and every other attempt to adapt land-based acft to CV operations.

Bottom line: F15 was never an option for USN when USN was making their decision (late '60's) and even if it was, it was never designed for the F14's primary mission.... long-range simultaneous intercept of multiple targets. F15 only gained the simultaneous target capability with the introduction of AMRAAM (originally a Sparrow/Sidewinder only acft).



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4798 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6877 times:

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 12):
I assume you meant "when they had the superior F-14". If that is the case, boy do you need some educating. Either that or you're just .

At the time we are talking about the Navy did have the F-14
Yes I do know that the F-14 is no longer in service which is a shame and is a direct result of Donald Rumsfeld being a dick and getting his panties twisted by Grumman.
The F-15 (apart from the bomber versions) is no longer being made for the USAF either... they don't have as hard a life as Navy aircraft (salt water vs dry desert air) hard carrier landings vs smooth runway landings etc so they can be expected to last longer...



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6802 times:

Quoting N74jw (Reply 4):
Those stats are not exactly valid. The F-15 has a larger user base and has been in more conflicts than the F-14. US F-14s dominated their adversaries at every turn.

F-15: USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia
F-14: USA, Iran

You forgot one more F-15 operator, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6776 times:

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 15):
Those stats are not exactly valid. The F-15 has a larger user base and has been in more conflicts than the F-14. US F-14s dominated their adversaries at every turn.

F-15: USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia
F-14: USA, Iran

You forgot one more F-15 operator, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

Perhaps their was a reason the F-15 is flown by 4 countries (for the F-15A-D, J) vs. two countries for the F-14A.

Quoting Da man (Reply 8):
Uh, AIM-54 Phoenix. The AIM-120 is the AMRAAM.

The F-15C/D does carry the AIM-120.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 9):
Try reading IRANIAN F-14 TOMCAT UNITS IN COMBAT by Osprey Press. The kills made by IIAF F-14 units are more than what is usually thought in the West.

That is true, of the 14 F-14 kills, 10 were made by the IIAF, the USN had 4. But compare the USN F-14 with just 4 kills and compare that to the USAF F-15 with 16 kills. BTW, until this year (FY-2008) the F-14 waqs in US service longer than the F-15, now in FY-08, the lenght of service is the same, because of the FY-2005 retirement of the F-14.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 13):
4. F15 could be "navalized" but at SIGNIFICANT performance reduction (same as F16... and every other attempt to adapt land-based acft to CV operations.

But the USN took the airplane that lost to the F-16, in the light weight fighter program in the late 1970s, the F-17, and "Navalized" it, then renamed it the F/A-18?

How about both decisions (a navalized F-15 and F-16) being a military/political decision of not wanting a USAF airplane? The USN could have had the Phonix capability they said they badly needed by taking some F-111Bs as an interium airplane until the F-14A arrived.

BTW, I also think the USAF did the same thing by keeping the F-106A in service longer than originally planned (then used F-4D/Es), when they could have had an AF version of the F-14 for their interceptor.


User currently offlineN74JW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6769 times:

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 15):
You forgot one more F-15 operator, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

Not actually, JASDF never took their eagles into combat. While we are splitting hairs, the RoKAF is now an eagle operator as well. Singapore is also slated to take delivery of a number of F-15S' (Not the Saudi F-15S)...


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3460 posts, RR: 47
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6629 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
But the USN took the airplane that lost to the F-16, in the light weight fighter program in the late 1970s, the F-17, and "Navalized" it, then renamed it the F/A-18?

The USN "took" it, but never "wanted" it. What USN _wanted_ was an attack aircraft, not a "light weight fighter" (fighter role already being filled by F-14s). Congress would not pay for ANY new USN aircraft that was not based upon the YF-16 or YF-17, so USN chose the YF-17 (primary stated reasons being twin-engine and easily modified nose gear). Note: YF-17 and F/A-18A share the same lineage, but very little else. F/A-18A is almost 30% LARGER with less than 20% parts commonality with YF-17. These are virtually completely different aircraft.

Quote:
How about both decisions (a navalized F-15 and F-16) being a military/political decision of not wanting a USAF airplane?

The issue is not about not wanting a USAF plane, but if ANYBODY has EVER successfully modified a land-based aircraft into a successful CV aircraft.... it has never been successfully done. F/A-18A was the first, but only after virtually redesigning the ENTIRE airframe.

Quote:
The USN could have had the Phonix capability they said they badly needed by taking some F-111Bs as an interium airplane until the F-14A arrived.

At 80,000 lbs... not a chance. The F-111B program was cancelled because the plane WEIGHED TOO MUCH to operate off a CV. No catapult could launch the thing! And IF (as you theorize) the USN had taken the F-111B, there would then have been no need for the F-14 in the first place. Please understand, the F-14 program began AFTER the F-111B was cancelled. Grumman, a prime sub-contractor on the F-111 program, saw the handwriting on the wall and began a crash design program for the USN's replacement. Grumman won the design competition and the end result was the first US military aircraft program designed from the start to include "block upgrades." F-14A was to QUICKLY get a new airframe to lift the AWG-9/Phoenix system into the air using "off-the-shelf" engines (TF-30s from F-111 program). F-14B (first upgrade) was to be new engines (~40% more thrust than TF-30) --which the new airframe was designed the utilize. F-14C was to be the avionics upgrade (digitial to replace analog AWG-9). THAT is the PROGRAM the USN wanted (and thought it had purchased). All done in late 1960s... long before the F-15 program was even begun (USAF still planned on purchasing F-111A's).



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6094 times:

AAR90 said pretty much what I was going to say so I guess I'll leave it at that.

KC135, I highly recommend IRANIAN F-14 TOMCAT UNITS IN COMBAT. Try your local Borders, they usually have it.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5132 times:

When was the idea for the F-14 and F-15 born, and when was the contract for the F-14 and F-15 awarded?


Andrea Kent


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5115 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20):
When was the idea for the F-14 and F-15 born, and when was the contract for the F-14 and F-15 awarded?

Grumman received the contract for the F-14 on January 15, 1969. The F-14 first flew on December 21, 1970. McDonnell Douglas received a contract for the F-15 on December 23, 1969 and it flew on July 27, 1972. By the way the F-14 crashed on its first flight.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5096 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
By the way the F-14 crashed on its first flight.

It was the first test bird on it's second flight.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5045 times:

Does anybody know what companies submitted proposals for the F-14 program? I know Grumman won the competition, but I wonder who else was in the competition.


474218,

Quote:
By the way the F-14 crashed on its first flight.

What caused the crash?


Andrea Kent


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30388 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5026 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 23):
Does anybody know what companies submitted proposals for the F-14 program? I know Grumman won the competition, but I wonder who else was in the competition.

The F-14 arose from the original TFX program, which was RFP'd by Boeing and eventual winner General Dynamics. Once awarded, it became the F-111 program with the F-111A for the USAF and the F-111B for the USN. The -B model was canceled due to inability to meet requirements so the USN created their own RFP which became the F-14.


25 Sprout5199 : IIRC it was an hydraulic leak caused by the lines flexing/moving due to not enough/designed in the wrong places holders. The crew tried to make it ba
26 Post contains links AAR90 : Flex line coupling leaked. Flex line was used to keep on the extremely short development time line (not that uncommon practice in the late 60's). The
27 Post contains images Sprout5199 : Ok I remember the "flex" part about it. Dan in Jupiter
28 Blackbird : What's "flex-line coupling" exactly? Andrea Kent
29 Post contains images AAR90 : A flexible hose or tube (usually steel reinforced) instead of a hard metal tube. Often used as temporary repair of a broken "hard-line." The coupling
30 Checksixx : Sure it does...who told you that??
31 Post contains images LMP737 : Have you been reading maintenance manuals again?
32 Post contains images AAR90 : You forget... I started out as an Airframes Branch Officer way back when. Knew enough to keep clear of the maintenance action, but not enough to not
33 Blackbird : AAR90, So the hydraulic line set-up was prone to leaking? That's why they lost pressure and had to punch out. I would assume they had fixed the defect
34 Post contains images AAR90 : "Prone to leaking?" Anything that carries fluid is "prone to leaking." The more connections you make, the more "prone to leaking" you have. Correct.
35 KevinSmith : One of our linemen was telling me yesterday that if Tomcats weren't leaking then you called MX, because that meant there wasn't any fluid in the bird
36 Post contains images LMP737 : Another officer bugging you when your busy fixing his plane. Actually I didn't mind it when the O's asked questions. Showed they wanted to know more
37 Post contains images KevinSmith : Well they'd quit if you'd stop trying to kill them by given them bad airplanes!!! Mx guys are tops no doubt about it. I noticed a slight leak the oth
38 LMP737 : He was talking about hydraulics. He was talking about hydraulics. On the F-14 hydraulic leaks were part of the game. If the engine, TF-30 at least, w
39 Sprout5199 : Or anything else he is charge of. As an ET, I had every O and senior enlisted bugging me from the TAO to the OS on watch when the comms went down. Be
40 Blackbird : Okay, so the hydraulic tubing was more leak-prone than usual due to the way it was designed, and the frequency of the airplane vibrating happened to r
41 Sprout5199 : Yep. that was it. Next time try to google it. Sometimes I just think you ask a question just to see if you get five different answers. Dan in Jupiter
42 Wvsuperhornet : In a fly off when the Shaw of Iran was deciding on which aircraft to purchase he was given the option o fbuying the F-14 or the F-15. Both aircraft fl
43 AAR90 : Remember, you're now talking about the natural frequency of the flex-line/coupler connection, not the hard line the plane was originally designed to
44 Checksixx : I think that should read F-15N Sea Eagle...which was proposed only and never built.
45 Blackbird : AAR90, That is what I had thought. If the hard-line vibrated the same way, it would have broke and leaked too. Checksixx, Do you have pictures of what
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-15 "Seagle"
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...
A-10 "C" Model posted Fri Jan 28 2005 01:58:29 by HawaiianHobo
USAF: From "P" To "F" posted Fri Feb 27 2004 02:15:02 by Dahawaiian
What Does The "V" In VF Mean? posted Wed Aug 29 2001 23:12:29 by Sunken_Lunken
Lack Of "turkey Feathers" On F-15 And B-1B posted Fri Apr 6 2007 08:04:06 by SCAT15F
What Are Those "Pods" On The F-15? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 03:44:13 by AnMCOSon
Luke AFB "Open House" F-15 Questions. posted Wed Mar 19 2003 07:00:22 by CX747
Tu 22 " Backfire " 22M In Attack Mode Near Norway posted Wed Oct 10 2007 21:40:21 by Mortyman
Report: Third Of RAF Bomber Sqns "To Be Culled" posted Sun Oct 7 2007 11:19:25 by RC135U
"A Spaceship Has Landed On Earth" posted Fri Sep 28 2007 10:59:52 by StealthZ
"Bundesrepublik Deutschland" A310 At SAN posted Wed Sep 19 2007 05:37:43 by DCAYOW
A-10 "C" Model posted Fri Jan 28 2005 01:58:29 by HawaiianHobo
USAF: From "P" To "F" posted Fri Feb 27 2004 02:15:02 by Dahawaiian
What Does The "V" In VF Mean? posted Wed Aug 29 2001 23:12:29 by Sunken_Lunken
Lack Of "turkey Feathers" On F-15 And B-1B posted Fri Apr 6 2007 08:04:06 by SCAT15F
What Are Those "Pods" On The F-15? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 03:44:13 by AnMCOSon
Luke AFB "Open House" F-15 Questions. posted Wed Mar 19 2003 07:00:22 by CX747
Tu 22 " Backfire " 22M In Attack Mode Near Norway posted Wed Oct 10 2007 21:40:21 by Mortyman
Report: Third Of RAF Bomber Sqns "To Be Culled" posted Sun Oct 7 2007 11:19:25 by RC135U
"A Spaceship Has Landed On Earth" posted Fri Sep 28 2007 10:59:52 by StealthZ
"Bundesrepublik Deutschland" A310 At SAN posted Wed Sep 19 2007 05:37:43 by DCAYOW
Report: Third Of RAF Bomber Sqns "To Be Culled" posted Sun Oct 7 2007 11:19:25 by RC135U
"A Spaceship Has Landed On Earth" posted Fri Sep 28 2007 10:59:52 by StealthZ
"Bundesrepublik Deutschland" A310 At SAN posted Wed Sep 19 2007 05:37:43 by DCAYOW
9/11 "Doomsday Plane" On CNN posted Thu Sep 13 2007 20:44:56 by Posti

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format