F-15N Sea Eagle

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I love the F-14 Tomcat so much, It has always been my best aircraft of all time since the F-4 Phantom but i guess it is too costly and complicated to repair and maintain. I know the USN are replacing it with the F/A-18 Super Hornet (becouse of the hornets performance) but i think really they should
use somthing more heavy duty - A Navalised F-15 Eagle.

This idea was actually suggested before when MDD (Mc Donnel Douglas) came to the USN about a navalised Eagle. At the time the USN were happy with thier F-14 Tomcats and continued to use them. Unfortunatly Now is the time when they are retiring to AMARC and the Tomcat needs a good replacement. I thought this would be a good sucessor becouse the parts are easier to get and it has had a great performance since it has entered service in 1975. Also it is more superior than the F/A-18s

There is some model site about an F-15N Sea Eagle, Looks a beast.

Anyone else out there seen it?




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I haven't seen the kit, sounds like an interesting 'what if' one though.

But I have to say that given that the F14 & F14 were pretty much contemporaries all through their 'lives', what would be the point of a navalised F15?

I would be amazed if a 'navalised' F15 would work out in any way 'cost effective'.
The development and small production run necessary to re-engine a relatively small batch of F15's with sea-worthy engines alone would cost a fortune, wouldn't they?

......and wouldn't cost of work to re-design and re-stress the undercarriage and airframe (to take the enormous demands of deck landings) be prohibitive?

If the actual 'need' were truely there why not just keep on or take out of storage the last highest spec F14's (and an avionics and electronics upgrade of the last F14A plus and F14D's would surely be so much cheaper)?

[edit on 26-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Okies, pardon my newbness in this issue, but the F14 is an interceptor right? And the F15 is not? I dont know that the F15 was ever fast enough or had the range enough to fill an interceptors roll.

As I understand it now, the F18 is not a direct replacement, rather than a gap filler until the Naval JSF is deployed. But niether fit an interceptors role.

I dont know that any plane in current, or openly planned, developement directly fills the role of the F14.

Even the amazing F22 isnt an interceptor (although it would do quite nicely)

You guys agree?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
If the Navy is going to spend money to navalise an Air Force aircraft, there is only one that it makes sense for, and that is the Raptor.

It is the only aircraft that would give the navy new capabilities.

Also as Skippy pointed out, it could serve as an interceptor, seeing as how it can supercruise. On top of that, there is an anti-missle missle in the works for the Raptor, and thus as a weapons platform it could take over for the Tomcat and pheonix missle system.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Okies, pardon my newbness in this issue


- No need to apologise for any of that newb stuff skippy, I don't see many going in for that kind of thing around here!

(although I still say you have lost your mind about the Vulcan! :rol:
)


but the F14 is an interceptor right? And the F15 is not?


- No.
Originally both were designed as pure 'air superiority' fighters (ie ultra high agility dog-fighting fighters) with a very much secondary air to ground capability.
So much so that around 10yrs after the F15a appeared the USAF ordered the all-new air to ground optimised F15e.

The US Navy fitted avionics to optimise the F14 for more of a strike role.


I dont know that the F15 was ever fast enough or had the range enough to fill an interceptors roll.


- Like I said interception and air superiority were indeed the Eagle and Tomcats original role.
They were amongst the first to make a deal of actual or near 1:1 thrust to weight ratios (IIRC the Tomcat had to wait to be re-engined to quite match the Eagle).

IIRC the Eagle is also marginally the faster of the 2.
I seem to recall the Eagle quoted at a flat out speed of Mach 2.5 and the Tomcat a little slower at just over Mach2.

Either plane could carry tanks to extend their excellent range (the Eagle could also have huge 'conformal' tanks attached so I imagine it actually had the advantage there).
IIRC both planes were very long-legged.


As I understand it now, the F18 is not a direct replacement, rather than a gap filler until the Naval JSF is deployed. But niether fit an interceptors role.


- I think it's more complicated than that.
Certainly originally the F14 - F18 relationship would possibly be more analogous to the F15 - F16 in the USAF but now that the F18e/f 'super' Hornet has arrrived I think matters have changed yet again.

I don't think it's accurate to view the super Hornets as an interim anything.


I dont know that any plane in current, or openly planned, developement directly fills the role of the F14.

Even the amazing F22 isnt an interceptor (although it would do quite nicely)

You guys agree?


- Quite possibly.

More than a few lament the passing of the Tomcat, it was a great design. High agility, long loiter on station and a huge weapons 'fit' are usually things that do not go together, check out the Tornado F3 for the proof of this (fine aircraft that it is - and wholly fulfilling the job demanded of it - it is no dog-fighter in the accepted modern idiom).

I certainly don't see the F22 as any kind of replacement for the F14 (I would be astounded if the F22 airframe or engines, as they are, could handle carrier operations without a massive redesign at vast expense and a consequent reduction in capability.)

But ultimately one must account of the 'need' and it is hard to see any circumstance where the F18e/f super Hornet, F35 JSF, cruise missile and drone mix is not going to be more than up to any credible likely task ahead.

There was an interesting comment on that Typhoon video Bodrul posted earlier.
It remarked on how the expected role of the Typhoon had gone from a highly unlikey cold war warrior to the distinct possibility of intercepting hijacked passanger jets.

Like I said, when the actual 'need' is taken into account.......?


[edit on 26-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
A naval version of the F-15 would be a better option than relying on the Super Hornets for interceptor roles. How much can beefing up the landing gear cost anyway?
A F-15 is certainly a more capable aircraft than the Super Hornet when it comes to air superiority.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Okies, pardon my newbness in this issue, but the F14 is an interceptor right? And the F15 is not? I dont know that the F15 was ever fast enough or had the range enough to fill an interceptors roll.



Considering that the F-15 was the first fighter in the world to match the speed and climb rate of the BAC Lightning I would say it was an excellent interceptor.

However I agree that a Navalised F-15 would be rather pointless. If there ever was a chance for such an aircraft to exist it would have required the cancellation of the F-14 first, around 1972. Keeping the F-14 would make more sense than converting to the F-15 at this late stage in the aircrafts life.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
How much can beefing up the landing gear cost anyway?


- It's not just landing gear Westy.
For an entire airframe not originally designed for it I think the answer is way too much.

So much so as to make the idea prohibitively expensive
(bear in mind that airframes are designed to be as light as possible for all the benefits that brings.
Why do you think it so rarely happens?).

IIRC the F18 had big problems at the start of it's career as it moved and developed from the original YF17 - so much so that it became pretty much an entirely new plane, just one with a similar shape.


[edit on 26-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Why would the entire airframe need to re-designed?
I though the reason why the landing gear on navy jets is so big is because they absorb the impact so that the airframe doesn’t have to.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
BEFORE this thread continues further, I would like to point out that the F-14 was never an Air Superiority Fighter, nor an interceptor, it was Designated Fleet Air Defense Fighter. Ask any Naval Personnel that worked along side the F-14.

A navalized F-15? The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet can do the job.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why would the entire airframe need to re-designed?
I though the reason why the landing gear on navy jets is so big is because they absorb the impact so that the airframe doesn’t have to.


What do you think you hang that beefed up gear on? The nose gear and attatchment must be strong enough to take repeated catshots, and on the other end is a funny thing called a tailhook that brings everything to a halt. Everything in the middle has to be strong enough to absorb that punishment... After all, a carrier landing is just a controlled crash.

Flight Deck Monkeys, not just for grabbing a padeye when turned on...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
BEFORE this thread continues further, I would like to point out that the F-14 was never an Air Superiority Fighter, nor an interceptor, it was Designated Fleet Air Defense Fighter. Ask any Naval Personnel that worked along side the F-14.

A navalized F-15? The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet can do the job.

Shattered OUT...


You are absolutely correct shattered, but does it matter what the name was?

After all, the F-14's job WAS to gain and maintain air superiority over and around the fleet and to intercept any unwanted intruders was it not?

whether it was called an interceptor or a fleet defence fighter or whatever is surely just semantics?

[edit on 26-10-2005 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Im agreeing with waynos on this one. The f-14 fleet defense role is navy talk for interseptor/air superority fighter. Also seeing as I have seen the 15 doing the same role just over an airbase or city doesn't mean its not an interseptor anymore.


NR

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
BEFORE this thread continues further, I would like to point out that the F-14 was never an Air Superiority Fighter, nor an interceptor, it was Designated Fleet Air Defense Fighter. Ask any Naval Personnel that worked along side the F-14.

A navalized F-15? The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet can do the job.

Shattered OUT...



F-14 is not a intercepter or a a air superiority fighter eh?? well ask that to all the migs it killed during the war.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
F-14 is not a intercepter or a a air superiority fighter eh?? well ask that to all the migs it killed during the war.


Alright, it's firmly established that this is a matter of semantics... Pure and simple.

Remember this? Aircraft Projects » F-15N Sea Eagle

Let's discuss that, there's plenty of F-14 threads.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Couple of things come to mind.

I was under the impression that the D model of the F-14 used the same engines as the F-15 (I could be wrong) The F110-GE-400 for the F-14D and the F-15K will use the F110-GE-129. So I doubt a navalized version of the engine would be a hurdle.

Also, can the F-15 handle the slow approach / high landing weights needed? Otherwise it would have to keep punching off weapons prior to landing

[edit on 10/26/05 by FredT]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
While I both agree and disagree with some of the things mentioned so far, I have to say that the term, "Fleet defense fighter" was coined to represent a role that is so vital to the national security of our country. The F-14 essentially had to maintain fleet protection at all costs. It had to both be a standoff attack platform and an interceptor, both of planes and cruise missiles. Its role was specific to fleet defense and only to fleet defense. I believe the role it had to assume was greater than any other fighter, our fleet is our first line of defense. Hence, the phoenix, ability to track 24 targets simultaneously, fire all 6 phoenix's with a great probability of BVR kill and great dog fighting skills and high top speed.

Train



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Some Details From my WARBIRD Tech Volume 9: F-15 Eagle

The navalized version with more stroke on the landing gear and other mods added about 2300 pounds. Several models were made including one with a dual wheel front gear.

To accomodate the AWG-9 Radar the mods would have required over 10,000 lb increase over the base F-15A

Other issues included the 12 degree apprach angle beeing much steeper than the 10.2 used for the F-14



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
BEFORE this thread continues further, I would like to point out that the F-14 was never an Air Superiority Fighter, nor an interceptor, it was Designated Fleet Air Defense Fighter. Ask any Naval Personnel that worked along side the F-14.

A navalized F-15? The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet can do the job.

Shattered OUT...


Shattered is exactly correct, on both counts. The original F/A-18 lacked in range a bit, but not any more. Not with the Super Hornet.

And yes, an F-15 would have to be re-designed totally. Every square inch.
First it would have to comply with US Navy specifications, which are different from anybody else. Main item, the US Navy doesn't not like stray electromagnetic emissions on the crowded deck. And with all the existing emissions already there, strange and dangerous things can happen on the flight deck, if equipment is not properly designed. So the US Navy has their own design rules.

Second, the landing gear of course, and all of the airframe connected to it. Every little change in an aircraft design, alters the size, type, and location of the landing gear. It's critical. And vice versa, changing the landing gear, can alter the entire rest of the design. The nose gear also has to handle the pull of the catapult, if nothing else. Once the design of the landing gear is decided on, the center of mass, and the center of pressure, cannot be changed!

Third, Navy aircraft fold wings and tails, to fit on deck and below deck storage. That's another major redesign.

Sounds expensive to me, I'd rather start with an existing US Navy design, which is what the Super Hornet did.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
The other aspect is that does the navy need a frontline Fleet defence fighter at this time? In the cold war the scenario was taking your CBG up into the bearing straights and playing with the USSR.

Now with no really challange at this point does the USN even need this type on unidimentional aircraft? I really don't think so....





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join