# Naval F-15



## gjs238 (Jul 13, 2010)

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 (Jul 13, 2010)

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


----------



## Torch (Jul 13, 2010)

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 (Jul 13, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> 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 (Jul 13, 2010)

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 (Jul 13, 2010)

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 (Jul 13, 2010)

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 (Jul 13, 2010)

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


----------



## renrich (Jul 15, 2010)

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 (Jul 15, 2010)

renrich said:


> 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 (Jul 15, 2010)

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 (Jul 15, 2010)

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 (Jul 16, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> 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 (Jul 16, 2010)

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 (Jul 16, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> 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.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 16, 2010)

The F-14's swing wings did confer flexibility in the flight envelope, allowing for sharp low-speed turns with unswept wings, and high-speed dash with swept wings. Swing wings also boost payload and range - meaning that your air superiority fighter can keep more missiles aloft for longer. 

We can probably kick this one back and forth for at least a week, but I consider VG to be advantageous in the air superiority role and bomber intercept role. As for a dogfighting role... you wouldn't want an aircraft as large as the F-14 really, something more like an F-16 maybe? Cheaper, more maneuverable and single-seat?


----------



## renrich (Jul 18, 2010)

The original concept of the F14 was that it was supposed to be kind of a "sniper." It could loiter quite aways from the fleet and shoot down incoming enemy bombers at a distance with the Phoenix missile. The AC was being developed in the sixties when ACM was considered to be pretty much over with because of the "lethality" of missiles. The engines of the F14 were therefore airliner type turbo fan TF30s. The T/W ratio of the F14 was a low 0.78 but the performance of the airplane, because of the swing wing and the aerodynamic excellence of the platform was such that, when deployed to active duty squadrons, problems with compressor stalls and engine durability became a problem. The airplane was being operated in ACM at very high angles of attack and with much changing of throttle inputs because the Tomcat could do maneuvers that Phantom and Crusader drivers could only dream of. The Phantom in hard turns would bleed energy rapidly so the throttles were always open whereas the Tomcat was so efficient the pilot often had to throttle back to maintain a firing position and then throttle up again. This was not liked by the engines. 

Incidently, I have read that F15 pilots said that they never wanted to get slow against a F14. I suppose that was because the F14 had better maneuverabilty than the F15 at subsonic speeds. I personally talked to an F14D driver at an air show who said they could defeat any other jet fighter in ACM. What did I expect him to say?


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 18, 2010)

Were TF-100s ever fitted to the F-14, just out of curiosity?


----------



## renrich (Jul 18, 2010)

The F14 eventually got the F110-GE-400 engines which made it a much more competitive aircraft. We have had the discussion on this forum before but IMO, the Defense department made a big mistake when it purchased the F/A18 over a new manufacture Super Tomcat. I just hope we don't have to pay for that mistake someday.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 18, 2010)

Oooooohhhh - Super Tomcat - tell me more


----------



## renrich (Jul 18, 2010)

As the Tomcat aged, it became a maintenance nightmare. A lot of that was caused by overaged electronics and electrical circuits. A new manufactured Tomcat would have presumerably have solved a lot of that problem. The Tomcat proposed as an alternate to the F/A 18 was much faster, longer ranged, had zero WOD capability, could launch without afterburner with full load and would have been, IMO, a much more capable air to air fighter. It would have incorporated all the latest electronic and infrared gizmos and would already have had the two crewman which the Super Hornet has. The only place the Hornet has an advantage is in it's smaller radar signature. Another big advantage is that the Tomcat's performance was not degraded, (as the Hornet's is) by ordnance carried, (because the Tomcat carries the ordnance conformally, in the tunnel.) The best Vmax I have seen for the Hornet is 1.8 Mach. The Tomcat was a 2.4 Mach airplane.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2010)

As I understand it the main reason the F-14 was retired early was due to unusually high operating costs. However I don't know why the F-14 was more expensive to maintain then other aircraft like the F-15 and F-4.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2010)

davebender said:


> As I understand it the main reason the F-14 was retired early was due to unusually high operating costs. However I don't know why the F-14 was more expensive to maintain then other aircraft like the F-15 and F-4.



When I was in the naval reserves I worked with guys who were in F-14 squadrons. According to at least two of them the F-14 was not maintainer friendly and spare parts were sometimes hard to come by. Many of the former fighter guys in my squadron preferred the F/A-18.


----------



## renrich (Jul 19, 2010)

Opinions are everyone's prerogative. The guy I knew that flew the A6 against the Mig21 was a veteran pilot in the attack community on the USN, flew in Viet nam and eventually was the skipper of a CV. He believed also that the Defense Department made a mistake in choosing the F/A18 over the new F14.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2010)

renrich said:


> He believed also that the Defense Department made a mistake in choosing the F/A18 over the new F14.


Easy for him to say, he didn't have to fix the damn thing when it broke!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2010)

So now what is the fleet doctrine to defend against cruise missles?

An F14D with upgraded Phoenix system working in conjunction with the newest versions of the Aegis system would be quite formidable.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 19, 2010)

F-18E/F with AESA. Fleet defence with Aegis/Standard missiles and CIWS.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 19, 2010)

Phoenix wasn't intended to intercept other missiles - it was intended to bring down the launch aircraft before the missiles were ever fired. In the era that the Missileer concept was being developed, the technology to engage missiles with guns or with other missiles was not well advanced, so the solution was to destroy the launch aircraft at long range. So an F-14 100 miles out from the carrier group would use Phoenix to reach out another 100 miles and take down a Tu-16 before it ever got close enough to make an attack.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> Phoenix wasn't intended to intercept other missiles - it was intended to bring down the launch aircraft before the missiles were ever fired. In the era that the Missileer concept was being developed, the technology to engage missiles with guns or with other missiles was not well advanced, so the solution was to destroy the launch aircraft at long range. So an F-14 100 miles out from the carrier group would use Phoenix to reach out another 100 miles and take down a Tu-16 before it ever got close enough to make an attack.



The Phoenix was more than capable of taking out cruise missles.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 19, 2010)

Actually, the AIM-54C was designed counter all aerial threats, including cruise missiles.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 19, 2010)

I'll stand corrected then


----------



## renrich (Jul 21, 2010)

FB, I believe that what he was thinking about was that he could launch at a significantly longer range and without as much regard for wind over the deck. Got to protect his bird farm. LOL


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 21, 2010)

evangilder said:


> ...including cruise missiles.


Eric
that's a hell of a big lump to hit a cruise missile with. At what point would it be too late to interdict with the AIM-54? If the cruise is on the home straight and is taking left and right turns at hedge-top height, how did the chase missile deal with 

a. the clutter, and
b. the jinking?


----------



## evangilder (Jul 21, 2010)

I don't know the technical detail of the missile, Colin, but I am guessing since it was a fleet protection weapon, there wouldn't be a lot of jinking or clutter over open water.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 21, 2010)

The Phoenix used a dive down attack. It could attack from a variety of positions, but the preferred was to launch it, it flies up high, dives down on the target and its fairly easy to track from there.


----------

