fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet

Wed Oct 24, 2001 9:57 pm

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

RE: Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet

Wed Oct 24, 2001 10:28 pm

Why f-15N ? Why not a f-22N?
 
Soren-a
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2001 10:13 pm

RE: Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet

Wed Oct 24, 2001 11:20 pm

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.......
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet

Wed Oct 24, 2001 11:41 pm

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
 
fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

RE: Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet

Wed Oct 24, 2001 11:42 pm

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.......

 
fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

J.T.

Wed Oct 24, 2001 11:47 pm

Sure man sure.But please answer the original thread.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: J.T.

Thu Oct 25, 2001 3:28 am

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.
 
fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

GDB & Soren-a

Fri Oct 26, 2001 8:44 pm

Thanks for the datailed replies.
Slobodan
 
CX747
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: GDB & Soren-a

Thu Nov 08, 2001 5:33 am

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
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet

Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:18 am

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

Any1 who talks bullshit above is definitly american
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Cobra27

Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:47 am

Excuse me? What are you saying about American's?
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet

Thu Nov 08, 2001 8:55 pm

just kidding  Smile Smile Smile
 
Guest

RE: Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet

Sat Nov 17, 2001 12:24 am

"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
 
Soren-a
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2001 10:13 pm

RE: Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet

Sat Nov 17, 2001 6:01 am

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
 
CX747
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Naval Eagle Vs Superhornet

Sat Nov 17, 2001 7:28 am

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests