It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-15N Sea Eagle

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
yes the US will need one soon when the chinese finish thier AC and what are you going to befend the fleet from land based russian and chinese fighters looking to sink the us grand carrier fleets?




posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
There is another aspect to navalising a land based fighter that hasn't been mentioned here. I remember that when the Harrier was being developed into the Sea Harrier a lot of the metals used in the original Harrier had to be changed to a more corrosion resistnant material and also, linked to this, during the Falkands war the RAF Harriers that went down there needed far more protection from the elements than the purpose built Sea Harriers. Thius always led me to wonder how the USMC went on with its AV-8A's but thats another story.

The point is that different metals have different properties of strength etc affecting the required thicknesses and thus aircraft weight. This all adds to the time and cost of converting to Carrier operation and can be one more factor that makes the whole effort not worth bothering with.

In the UK the Harrier HAD to be converted if the RN was to regain fixed wing fighters, the USN is not in that position.

In such a move with the F-15 today composites could probably be used instead of metals but there will be areas where metal needs to be used. Also, whatever the material used, it all takes R&D funding that really needn't be spent on a 33 year old design that the Navy never wanted in the first place.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
The Super Hornet is still lacking in range and speed peformance in comparison to the Tomcat, and that's while carrying less ordinance and being a less capable weapons platform. The theory is that since it's so much easier/cheaper to maintain it will be able to make up for those shortcomings with increased flight operation scheduling. If that proves to be true, then it is probably a good call for now, since most of our enemies can't even approach our navy, but for possible future conflicts I'm hoping the JSF proves far more impressive.

Here's and EXCELLENT article on the comparison between the F-18E/F and the F-14.

This being said, I don't think the F-15 is a viable alternative. Yeah it's a great air-superiority fighter, but it's pretty long in the tooth as well, and a naval redesign would be fairly costly (both in terms of money and performance) for all the reasons mentioned earlier by others.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Fanstatic article nipples.
NOTHING can replace the mighty F-14 at present and maybe near future



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
There is a very simple solution for this problem. Get the Navy to call Grumman and place an order for four hundred Super Tomcat 21s. This would cost the same or be cheaper than making a sea going Eagle.

As far as the definition of "Fleet Defence Fighter" goes the Tomcat was designed as a pure interceptor. That was the whole purpose for the AIM-54 missiles. The idea was that the Hawkeyes would detect an incoming strike and vector the airborn Tomcats to intercept. In the mean time the carrier would launch the Tomcats that it had on deck and prepare to recover the ones already in the air. After making their attack the initial group of Tomcats would return to the ship and refuel and rearm. As that was happening the second group would be making their attack. The long range of the Phoenix missile made this feasable. Even if the attacking bombers were not hit by the Phoenixs they would be forced to jettison their own weapons to evade the missiles.

Super Tomcat 21



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char2c35t
yes the US will need one soon when the chinese finish thier AC and what are you going to befend the fleet from land based russian and chinese fighters looking to sink the us grand carrier fleets?


Russian fighter degigns usualy have shorter legs than do thier counterparts in the West. Also, One carrier is not exactly a threat to an intergrated carrier battle fleet. You are forgetting that the Russians possesed Supersonic cruise missile launching bombers, submarines, cruise missile launching submarines, a large surface fleet etc etc etc. THe PLAAN as of yet does not have this by any measure. The future? Maybe if they choose to build a massive bluewater fleet. However, as of today, they really are a littoral Navy



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
As many of you know, before the merger, I worked for MD, and we went through the same hoo-raw with what we called the AH-64B, a marinized version of the original Apache. The cost to marinize the aircraft was enormous, and was based on blade-fold concerns, changing the intakes to eliminate water ingestion, and re-examining every single part of the helicopter to ensure that it wouldn't fail due to corrosiveness. It wasn't worth it.

Now inasmuch as my company builds it, it would certainly do wonders for my 401(k) is there were a huge attempt to marinize the F-15, but the costs are so high (based upon all the items mentioned by sminky, shattered, et. al.)in relation to the benefits that it's never been seriously considered.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
For the same amount of R&D money, would an aircraft based on the F-14 not offer much better performance than one based on the F-15 anyway?

Consider that alot of F-15 R&D would be wasted on navalising it as already pointed out in the thread - what could that money be used to achieve with the F-14?



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
There is no need for this aircraft to be brought to life. The thing would take up too much room on the flight deck and would require an almost total redesign.

The F-15's days are numbered, stop trying to save it.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
There is a very simple solution for this problem. Get the Navy to call Grumman and place an order for four hundred Super Tomcat 21s. This would cost the same or be cheaper than making a sea going Eagle.

As far as the definition of "Fleet Defence Fighter" goes the Tomcat was designed as a pure interceptor. That was the whole purpose for the AIM-54 missiles. The idea was that the Hawkeyes would detect an incoming strike and vector the airborn Tomcats to intercept. Tomcat 21[/url]

AIM-54 Pheonix Missiles were first developed for the F-108 Rapier, the Escort Fighters for the XB-70 Valkyrie. However, when the XB-70 was cancelled, so was the F-108, but the missile lived on, it was then incorporated for use on the F-14 Fleet Air Defense Fighter.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Was the Phoenix also going to be the weapon for the F-12? I think I saw somewhere that it was but I may have got that wrong.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Was the Phoenix also going to be the weapon for the F-12? I think I saw somewhere that it was but I may have got that wrong.


- I know it and the AWG-9 radar system were intended to be part of the F111B.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
AIM-54 Pheonix Missiles were first developed for the F-108 Rapier, the Escort Fighters for the XB-70 Valkyrie. However, when the XB-70 was cancelled, so was the F-108, but the missile lived on, it was then incorporated for use on the F-14 Fleet Air Defense Fighter.

Shattered OUT...


Wrong, it was never intended for the F-108:


Development of the Phoenix began in late 1960, after the U.S. Navy's projected F6D Missileer and the associated AAM-N-10 Eagle long-range interception missile had been cancelled. Hughes then started to develop a new long-range missile, designated AAM-N-11 by the Navy, together with the AN/AWG-9 FCS (Fire Control System). The new missile and FCS used technology previously tested by the AIM-47 Falcon and AN/ASG-18, respectively, in the USAF's YF-12A program. The Phoenix/AWG-9 combination was originally intended as the main armament for the F-111B, then planned to become the Navy's new air superiority fighter and long-range interceptor. In June 1963, the AAM-N-11 was redesignated as AIM-54A. Flight tests of XAIM-54A prototypes began in 1965, and the first guided interception succeeded in September 1966. While the Phoenix test program continued, the F-111B was cancelled, and the AIM-54 and AN/AWG-9 were incorporated into the new F-14 Tomcat, which was to take over the role of the F-111B. The first production AIM-54A missiles were delivered in 1973, ready for deployment with the first F-14A squadron in 1974.


The F-108 was to carry the AIM-47A, which sort of looked like the Phoenix on the outside. They did not look alike on the inside.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezza
Fanstatic article nipples.
NOTHING can replace the mighty F-14 at present and maybe near future




You tell em Jezza!, The F-14 Tomcat is the gods gift of jet fighters. It is also described by aviators as the harley davidson of the sky.

There was (well sort of) a Tomcat culture in the late 1980s possibly becouse of the blockbuster film TOP GUN in 1986, the F-14 also starred in other film/TV programs like SUPERCARRIER etc. (I always even used to play the arcade game AFTER BURNER a lot too!) It just proves the Tomcat is the coolest plane ever made, it is also the most glamourised fighter plane by pilots and aviation buffs around the globe.

I have also seen some sad pictures of F-14s munched to scrap at AMARC. Ok fair enough if the plane is beyond repair otherwise why dont they just sell them off to other NATO countries?.

Those guys at AMARC really are 'cat killers'.

'STOP KILLING THEM CATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Excellent Browno, interesting stuff about the surviving F111B, hmmmm, I wonder what will become of that.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Now, if people say that the Tomcat is the Harley Davison of the skys, then what's the Kawazaki's and Honda's of the skies(The super sleek, super fast crouch rockets
)?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Excellent Browno, interesting stuff about the surviving F111B, hmmmm, I wonder what will become of that.


About the Naval F-111B, I know we are discussing about a navalised F-15
but i brought the F-111B up becouse im trying to show that it is possible to navalise aircraft. Also becouse the F-14 derived from the F-111B Naval Aardvark. The AIM-54 Phoenix missile was originally designed for the F-111B

I like the F-111 Aardvark too, it has also been one of my favourites. I like the ejection pod installed instead of individual seats becouse if you crash in areas like the arctic or the ocean, it becomes a shelter too to protect the crew from the elements. I describe the F-111 as a rich mans/luxury jet fighter!.

The Aardvark would have been good use to the navy becouse of the ejection canopy but it could just have been land based instead

A plane like this would also appeal to james bond!(becouse of the luxury escape pod!)



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
There's no question that you can navalise a land based fighter, its been done many times since the RNAS first took Sopwith Camels out to sea (and often left them there). The question is whether it would be worth it given that the fighter in question is over 30 years old and facing retirement itself in the foreseeable future.

Lovely model though, there's nothing wrong with speculating on possibilities in plastic, I've done it myself,


I've seen it mentioned before about the F-14 being derived from the F-111B and it just isn't true, I don't know where this comes from?

The basic fact of the matter is, in simplified form because I don't have enough facts to hand to type a detailed account, that after everyone realised that the F-111B was a bit of a pigs ear of a fighter, Grumman started from scratch to design a fighter that met broadly the samer spec. It was entirely new.

For a plane to have been derived from another the basic architecture of the original would have to be utilised in some form, however there is nothing of the F-111 in the F-14 aside from various items of equipment.



[edit on 1-11-2005 by waynos]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I've seen it mentioned before about the F-14 being derived from the F-111B and it just isn't true, I don't know where this comes from?


- I've noticed this one too.
The other tale on this being that they were some kind of contemporaries.

I suppose part of it comes from the 2 planes having swing-wings and the same (or a derivation of the) intended radar, missile and engine 'fit'.

Maybe an impression has been created and allowed to build so as to 'borrow' a little of the F14 Tomcat's 'gloss' because some people have a problem admitting what a disaster the naval F111b was (not at all helped by the initial disasterous start the USAF F111a version had too).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join