Naval F-15

[gjs238]

With hindsight, would it have been a better course of action to have fielded a navalized F-15 instead of the F-14?



Since the F-15 is still in service, I imagine the naval/marine version would be as well.
The F-15 may have provided a good platform for an A-6 replacement.

I understand the F-14 brought some different capabilities to the table than the F-15, but the F-14 is now history and the F-15 continues in service and continues to evolve.

PS: I believe the F-15N Sea Eagle and F-15N-PHX were proposed at one point.

[timshatz]

If you dump the swing wing part of the Tomcat, you probably end up with something very like the F15.

[Torch]

I read some where that adding the heavy duty landing gear, folding wings and Pheonix missles would undermine the performance of the F-15n and that it was just politics on the table when the F-14 was still new.

[FLYBOYJ]

With hindsight, would it have been a better course of action to have fielded a navalized F-15 instead of the F-14?

No - although there was a navalized proposal for the F-15, it was esentially designed as a land-based air superiority fighter from the wheels up.[/QUOTE]

[BombTaxi]

IIRC, wasn't the F-14 an outcome of the Missileer programs, which were based around Phoenix and it's associated avionics? If so, a navalised F-15 needs to carry phoenix, the associated radar and FC systems, and a RIO to operate them. Essentially, it becomes an F-14 in all but name...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The F-14 was designed for use with the AIM-54, the F-15 was not. I think that modifying the F-15 to do that, may have taken away from its abilities. In essence, two different aircraft with two different purposes.

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

I cannot remember where I read it but one of the complaints about the F-14 was it's price so they did a study and found that converting a F-15 to do the same job as the Tomcat would end up being just as costly. Correct me if I'm wrong for I cannot find the info and I may be dreaming that I read it.

[Matt308]

F-15 and carriers are two different missions. There is a reason the F-14 had swing wings.

[renrich]

This is a similar discussion to the proposition that the P51 could have been adapted for use as a shipboard fighter. Navy tests showed that the Mustang did not have suitable low speed handling for carrier landings plus navalisation and structural changes to the P51 to enable it to withstand the stress of carrier landings would have robbed it of some of it's performance.

A more likely possibility was that the F14 could have assumed the role of the F15. An advantage that the F14 had over the F15 as a strike fighter was that the performance of the F14 was not degraded as much by a heavy load of missiles or bombs because the stores were carried conformally,( in the tunnel.)

[syscom3]

This is a similar discussion to the proposition that the P51 could have been adapted for use as a shipboard fighter. Navy tests showed that the Mustang did not have suitable low speed handling for carrier landings plus navalisation and structural changes to the P51 to enable it to withstand the stress of carrier landings would have robbed it of some of it's performance.

A more likely possibility was that the F14 could have assumed the role of the F15. An advantage that the F14 had over the F15 as a strike fighter was that the performance of the F14 was not degraded as much by a heavy load of missiles or bombs because the stores were carried conformally,( in the tunnel.)

Unfortunatly, the engines the navy selected for the F14 were less than impressive.

And then again about the rotating wings ..... just wasted weight for a pure land based AC.

[BombTaxi]

If you're referring to the swing wings, how are they a waste? The Tornado and F-111 (both purely land-based and both in a similar category to a 'Strike Tomcat') used swing wings, and both benefited from them...

[renrich]

Not to mention the Mig 23. The P & W engines originally used in the F14 were not good choices but the later Tomcats with the GE engines were a cat of a different color. In straight ACM contests, the F15 was probably better than the F14 but as an interceptor of enemy bombers or as a strike fighter the F14 had some advantges over the F15. However, the USAF would never accept a plane designed for the USN unless they had no alternative like in the case of the F4 Phantom. A thing called intra service rivalry, which sometimes does not take the tax payer in account.

[syscom3]

If you're referring to the swing wings, how are they a waste? .

What do you want? An air superiority fighter where weight is a premium, a bomber interceptor where ACM is not a primary design consideration, or a fighter bomber where every pound of excess weight in the airframe is less payload?

There is no compelling reason for a land based F14 to have a swing wing.

The swing wing design for land based AC was proven to have more cost associated with it, then it was worth.

[BombTaxi]

Well, the served in air superiority and interceptor roles with the USN, and the swing wings were no disadvantage, so I suppose it's a bit of a moot point?

[syscom3]

Well, the served in air superiority and interceptor roles with the USN, and the swing wings were no disadvantage, so I suppose it's a bit of a moot point?

No its not.

The swing wing was a valid design consideration for a naval fighter that was tasked with protecting the fleet, primarily against long range bombers and cruise missles.

It did add weight that impacted its ACM role when it had to fight "then" current (1970's and 80's) Russian fighters. Take away the swing wing concept and two man cockpit and you end up with something along the lines of the F18.

Now what advantages did a swing wing fighter bring to a dedicated land fighter? None. Even in a fighter bomber role, like the FB-111, did a swing wing really add much to its performance? Nope.