By: michelf
- 5th March 2007 at 12:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tomcat T,
Interesting post...I do not however agree with you about Grumman not having the political clout of others...I think they had vast amounts of it, being the main supplier of NavAir products since WW2...beating MacAir.
They used up the vast majority of that support in getting the 14 to the deck....a not inconsiderable achievement.
But from all the material I have read I still believe that the inherent capabilties of the airframe were never exploited purely for political reasons. The overturning of a SecDef and DoD sponsired programme (F-111B) by the users was always going to haunt the F-14 programme and it ensured that NavAir were always going to be pitted against the DoD...and when the NavAir supporters were removed (as you say Tailhook) the programme was pretty much on the skids.
Nothing to do with capability and everything to do with power...
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 5th March 2007 at 19:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Please don't make it the notorious F-18E vs. F-14 debate. We have had all this s__t.
Schorsch
man please first do not tell me what i can or can not say, second what i said its true, why you need the F-14 in an age even the Gripen can be armed with Meteors and IRIS-Ts? The american as the Europeans will arm their new fighters with air breathing missiles like the Meteor that have long range like the AIM-54 but that are lighter into newer and stealthier platforms like the F-35 and F-18E, also range is no problem with inflight refuelling so if you have air refuelling, Meteors or AIM-120D and AIM-9X who needs the F-14? the answer only fans, the US needs to develop and deploy better weapons and the F-14 can not be put it into production now, the F-14 in the 1970s and 1980s was good because it was needed it had capabilities no other fighters had but in 2007 it is obsolete
the question you have asked it is easy to understand, and always you will end up mentioning the F-18E, why because the US strategists know and knew the F-14 shortcomings and knew a cheaper weapon or newer weapons could replace the ageing F-14, in fact look once the F-18 was deployed the versatility the F-18 had proved enough to replace the F-14.
Here all the F-14 fans want to workship the F-14 in an altar, but see the reality, in 2007 there are better weapons, the F-14 never was a perfect machine, niether special, it was a good aircraft and in the 1970s was good but in 2007 it is old, could it had been upgraded? yes it could had but the US Navy saw more future to the F-18 because it is cheaper and more versatile.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 5th March 2007 at 19:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tomcat T,
Interesting post...I do not however agree with you about Grumman not having the political clout of others...I think they had vast amounts of it, being the main supplier of NavAir products since WW2...beating MacAir.
They used up the vast majority of that support in getting the 14 to the deck....a not inconsiderable achievement.
But from all the material I have read I still believe that the inherent capabilties of the airframe were never exploited purely for political reasons. The overturning of a SecDef and DoD sponsired programme (F-111B) by the users was always going to haunt the F-14 programme and it ensured that NavAir were always going to be pitted against the DoD...and when the NavAir supporters were removed (as you say Tailhook) the programme was pretty much on the skids.
Nothing to do with capability and everything to do with power...
One of the factors that killed the F-14 was it was over specialized and basicly was only purchased due to the fact the US navy wanted their own fighter, The F-15 was better as a dogfighter and also had AIM-7, it could had been navalized, even carry AIM-54s but since the whole reason the F-14 remained a need was the AIM-54, once the AIM-54 became obsolete, the F-14 also became obsolete and unwanted
By: Bager1968
- 5th March 2007 at 20:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Michelf, I think you have something mixed up.
"(Remember that the envisaged Carrier Air Group by the mid -70s was only Grumman products, F-14s, A-6s and E-3s, with Sea Kings as the rotary wing component)"
The E-3 is a Boeing AWACS plane based on the 707 airliner. It could never operate from a carrier.
I think you meant either the E-2, which is a Grumman carrier-based AEW plane, and/or the Lockheed S-3 Viking... a carrier-based ASW plane which entered service in 1974.
Also, the Vought A-7E Corsair II was intended to see service throughout the 1970s, and into the early 1980s... as indeed it did.
The F-14 was NEVER intended to replace it, nor was the A-6, as it was designed and used for a different role than the A-7 (night/all-weather strike vs daylight CAS/light attack).
Thus, the carrier wing the USN planned to field in the last half of the 1970s, and the first half of the 1980s, while definitely dominated by Grumman designs, was certainly not a "only Grumman" air wing.
49-46 Grumman fixed-wing, 35-38 non-Grumman fixed-wing, 6 non-Grumman rotary-wing [Lockheed US-3A and Grumman C-2A COD aircraft were assigned to shore bases, not to the carrier air wing]
In reality, some ships had this, while others had 1 F-14 and 1 McD F-4 fighter squadron... while Coral Sea and Midway had 2 F-4 squadrons (too small to operate F-14s effectively).
By: michelf
- 5th March 2007 at 21:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MiG
Just for you to know that you have totally missed the point of the F-14 and its multi role capability.
As designed, envisaged and flight tested the 14 was both an A2A platform and an A2G platform with a long reach.. in terms of taking the missile far from the carrier group with minimal tanker support, being able to carry a heavy missile and being able to carry a heavy bomb load to the beach...
The requirement for 'dgofighting' with other fighters was limited as its two prime areas of operation were either blue water against bombers...or in operations such a Vietnam where interdiction against defended targets meant avoiding A2A or having cover from other assets.. like fighter configured BVR toting 14s on a CAP....the A2A capability at the time of conception was in excess of any realistic opponent...the ones which had a clear parity or were better only appear in the form of the MiG 29 and the Flanker. The USN didn't give monkeys about the F-15's A2A 'superiority', it couldn't, as designed, carry 6 Phoenixes, it was not carrier compatible and their actions with regard to the F-15 were justifed when the McAir proposal came back with very similar figures to the then flying F-14. An F-15N would not have been an F-15A or C....
(PS the Iranians purchased the F-14 because in their words... 'its agility and performance in the low speed manoeuvering demonstrations exceed the performance demonstrated by the F-15'. McAir protested that Grumman cheated in that demo...no, they stretched the rules as McAir had done for themselves earlier with the Streak Eagle, making implications that this was the 'Eagle' rather than a suitably modified version destined for records alone.....;) )
Remember also that at the time twin engines were viewed as essential for a blue water air group..so lightweight single engined comparisons are irrelevant.
The only fragment of reasonable arguement you put forward is that there are alternatives to the F-14 currently on the international market place which can take on some of the roles the F-14 was able to perform some 30 years ago....but that does not equate to the arguement that the F-14 was in some way lacking or deficient....
Bager,
Thanks for the heads up.. I meant Tomcat; Intruder and Hawkeye..not Sentry.
As for your listing of the actual CAG it is correct...but the intended Air Wing for the planned big deck carriers proposed additional F-14s tasked with A2G rather than additional A-7s (scrapped when the F-14 unit price increased after the bankrupcy issues and the B model was scrapped) a Hawkeye/ Greyhound derivative in the ASW role rather than the Lockheed Viking (it would still ahve been called Viking...This common airframe was the evolution of the S-2 Tracer/ C-1 Trader/ WF-2 line which had inhabited carrier decks previously.
This left the Sea Kings as the only non Grumman product....As you pointed out it didn't come true but it was the intention.
Remember at the time the US operated two distinct carrier types.. the Essex (no F-4s) and Midway classes which were unable to have the F-14..and the 'super carriers' Forrestal/ Nimitz classes (Enterprise being a single ship class) which were intended to have all the whistles and bells. The retirement of the Essexes was delayed by the Ops required in support of the Vietnam War and in the end the speed of procurement of the nuclear 'Forrestal class' was slowed down such that the Midways had to remain in service much longer than expected.
The mix of 4s and 14s was never intented, it was a result of the financial issues in the 14 programme.
With an all supercarrier fleet all CAGs would have been equiped with an all Grumman Air Wing....
But in the late 60s/ early 70s when the F-14 was the centre of so much attention that was the overall paradigm that prevailed....and it gives the perspective in which to try to understand the importance of the F-14 programme to the overall US military picture, and why when the 'Admirals Revolted' they were listened to and when Grumman went back to the DoD asking for more money to remain solvent they actually got what they needed...but they ended up paying a very heavy price for that action...one which had nothing to do with the performance of their products.
By: frankvw
- 5th March 2007 at 21:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow, out of 87 aircraft only 34 with attack capability!
So ?
The menace at that point was a horde of Bears, Badgers, Blinders and Mays attacking the CVBGs, or for the matter convoys and other surface assets. You needed the Electronic planes to 1) gather intelligence on where the ennemy was, 2) jam whatever was possible, and make its life difficult, and 3) guide the interceptors (the Tomcats) towards th missile carriers.
The A-7 would in that scenario be a last line of defense around the carrier.
The A-6 were attack planes, and if I'm not mistaken, nuke capable. They were giving a CVBG the punch to attack land targets, and 34 bombers were still more than what many airforces could field ... They of course had an anti surface capability.
The Vikings were used to hunt submarines, another plane that gets retired without replacement. And I'm not sure the helicopters always have the necessary range or speed to do the job.
In case the cold war turned hot, those planes wouldn't have made such a difference, as the ICBMs would most likely have been used before.
In the latest conflicts, a Carrier Air Group made of a majority of bombers makes sense as you don't see an aerial opposition, and the reduced range of the Hornets is less of an issue, as you don't have real coastal defenses. But if a situation arose where a country like China and the USA weregetting hostile, the CVBGs would be in trouble, because the planes lack the range, and the upper hand in the A2A area. A Carrier is immune as long as it is undetected. The nearest you get to the coast, the greater the risks are.
By: kilcoo316
- 5th March 2007 at 23:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the factors that killed the F-14 was it was over specialized and basicly was only purchased due to the fact the US navy wanted their own fighter, The F-15 was better as a dogfighter and also had AIM-7, it could had been navalized, even carry AIM-54s but since the whole reason the F-14 remained a need was the AIM-54, once the AIM-54 became obsolete, the F-14 also became obsolete and unwanted
Hit the brakes there MiG.
OK, the Phoenix as it stands now is obsolete.
Now, imagine what kind of ramjet you could put into a missile that size ;)
You've all of a sudden probably got double the range of the meteor (makes sense since the AIM-54 had at least double the range of the AIM-7). While efficiencies have improved, you can always use the space to give it more fuel, a bigger engine, a bigger warhead etc etc etc.
Compare like with like, not a 1970s missile with one designed 35+ years later!
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 6th March 2007 at 01:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MiG
Just for you to know that you have totally missed the point of the F-14 and its multi role capability.
As designed, envisaged and flight tested the 14 was both an A2A platform and an A2G platform with a long reach.. in terms of taking the missile far from the carrier group with minimal tanker support, being able to carry a heavy missile and being able to carry a heavy bomb load to the beach...
The requirement for 'dgofighting' with other fighters was limited as its two prime areas of operation were either blue water against bombers...or in operations such a Vietnam where interdiction against defended targets meant avoiding A2A or having cover from other assets.. like fighter configured BVR toting 14s on a CAP....the A2A capability at the time of conception was in excess of any realistic opponent...the ones which had a clear parity or were better only appear in the form of the MiG 29 and the Flanker. The USN didn't give monkeys about the F-15's A2A 'superiority', it couldn't, as designed, carry 6 Phoenixes, it was not carrier compatible and their actions with regard to the F-15 were justifed when the McAir proposal came back with very similar figures to the then flying F-14. An F-15N would not have been an F-15A or C....
(PS the Iranians purchased the F-14 because in their words... 'its agility and performance in the low speed manoeuvering demonstrations exceed the performance demonstrated by the F-15'. McAir protested that Grumman cheated in that demo...no, they stretched the rules as McAir had done for themselves earlier with the Streak Eagle, making implications that this was the 'Eagle' rather than a suitably modified version destined for records alone.....;) )
Remember also that at the time twin engines were viewed as essential for a blue water air group..so lightweight single engined comparisons are irrelevant.
The only fragment of reasonable arguement you put forward is that there are alternatives to the F-14 currently on the international market place which can take on some of the roles the F-14 was able to perform some 30 years ago....but that does not equate to the arguement that the F-14 was in some way lacking or deficient....
Bager,
Thanks for the heads up.. I meant Tomcat; Intruder and Hawkeye..not Sentry.
As for your listing of the actual CAG it is correct...but the intended Air Wing for the planned big deck carriers proposed additional F-14s tasked with A2G rather than additional A-7s (scrapped when the F-14 unit price increased after the bankrupcy issues and the B model was scrapped) a Hawkeye/ Greyhound derivative in the ASW role rather than the Lockheed Viking (it would still ahve been called Viking...This common airframe was the evolution of the S-2 Tracer/ C-1 Trader/ WF-2 line which had inhabited carrier decks previously.
This left the Sea Kings as the only non Grumman product....As you pointed out it didn't come true but it was the intention.
Remember at the time the US operated two distinct carrier types.. the Essex (no F-4s) and Midway classes which were unable to have the F-14..and the 'super carriers' Forrestal/ Nimitz classes (Enterprise being a single ship class) which were intended to have all the whistles and bells. The retirement of the Essexes was delayed by the Ops required in support of the Vietnam War and in the end the speed of procurement of the nuclear 'Forrestal class' was slowed down such that the Midways had to remain in service much longer than expected.
The mix of 4s and 14s was never intented, it was a result of the financial issues in the 14 programme.
With an all supercarrier fleet all CAGs would have been equiped with an all Grumman Air Wing....
But in the late 60s/ early 70s when the F-14 was the centre of so much attention that was the overall paradigm that prevailed....and it gives the perspective in which to try to understand the importance of the F-14 programme to the overall US military picture, and why when the 'Admirals Revolted' they were listened to and when Grumman went back to the DoD asking for more money to remain solvent they actually got what they needed...but they ended up paying a very heavy price for that action...one which had nothing to do with the performance of their products.
michelf
Before everybody thinks i am an F-14 hater i have to say i do love VG wing fighters, the F-14 is more much beatiful than the F-15, i do really like the F-14, it is my favorite american aircraft, i am an F-14 fan, and i miss the F-14
After i said that i want to analize this factor, the former Soviet Union only built 3 fourth generation fighters, the MiG-29, the Su-27 and the MiG-31, this contrasts with the americans who built four fourth generation types.
The MiG-29 basicly was the Soviet counter part for the F-16 and F-18 and the Su-27 was the counter part of the F-14 and F-15; the MiG-31 filled niches similar to the F-14, it was designed to kill bombers and cruise missiles, but never it was intented to design it as a naval fighter.
The Su-27 was navalized as the F-15 could have been, the MiG-29 was also navalized to be the Soviet counter part of the F-18.
The R-37 can be deployed by the Su-27 derivatives and basicly it is an AIM-54 counterpart.
The Soviet Union was never as wealthy as the USA, the US could built the F-14 only because their naval officcers wanted it, but in reality if the F-15 would had been navalized it would had had a better price than the F-14, the F-15 already has surpassed the 1500 aircraft built, would had it been navalized today we would say there would be close to 2500 F-15s deployed and operational.
I mean its unit priced would had been cheapened, however it never happened because contrary to Russia where the F-15 counter part was navalized, the F-15 was not, there was enough money in the US to justify the F-14 existence.
However see that the F-18 replaced the F-14 only because it also was cheaper than the F-15, so it was more logic to design an F-14 replacement from the F-18 than from the F-15. Missiles like the Meteor are making cheap fighters like the SAAB JAS-39 great multirole aircraft as good as an F-14 at BVR combat or as good as the Panavia Tornado or F-15E in terms of the arsenal carried
The AIM-54 as the R-33 are heavy weapons that impose great drag and weight penalty to the carrier aircraft.
The 1960s and early 1970s technology forced aircraft designers to build large aircraft to carry them with relatively large radars and a second man crew, these missiles were intended to be used against mainly bombers such as the Tu-22M, B-1B and B-52 and their cruise missiles.
However in todays world that does not happen, the Meteor can be fire by smaller jets, modern technology has given great processing power enough to dispense of a second man crew in the JAS-39, the F-14 in fact has become obsolete, because now cheaper and smaller fighters can do its job.
By: Bager1968
- 6th March 2007 at 04:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Michelf... the Grumman ASW aircraft you describe was the Grumman entry in the competition that was won by the Lockheed S-3... not a design to replace it!
http://www.vectorsite.net/avs3.html
"In the 1960s, the Soviet Navy's switch to nuclear-powered submarines that rarely had to surface rendered existing US Navy antisubmarine warfare (ASW) assets, such as the Grumman S-2 Tracker carrier-based sub hunter, increasingly ineffective. In late 1966, after two years of consideration, the Navy issued a requirement for a new, more capable, carrier-based ASW aircraft under the "VSX" program. A team led by Lockheed beat a Grumman-led team,with the Lockheed team awarded a contract in August 1969 for development of the VSX as the twin-turbofan "S-3A".
The Lockheed team also included Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) and Univac Federal Systems. LTV was particularly important in the partnership, since Lockheed didn't have much experience in building carrier-based aircraft and needed LTV's assistance to get the job done right. LTV built the engine pods, landing gear, tail assembly and wings; Univac put together the ASW electronics suite; and Lockheed built the fuselage and performed final integration and test of all aircraft elements."
The next mention of any Grumman design for ASW comes in the mid-late 1990s, as part of the "Common Support Aircraft" program... right when the USN decided fixed-wing ASW was no longer needed aboard its carriers.
The A-7 was also the winner of a 1960s competition over a Grumman design:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/newa7.html
"The Ling-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II was the result of a May 17, 1963 Navy design competition named VAL, which stood for Light Attack Aircraft. The VAL aircraft was to replace the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and was to have as its primary mission the delivery of conventional ordnance as opposed to nuclear weapons. The aircraft was to have a single seat, and the requirement specified that the aircraft would have to be in service no later than 1967.
Only four aircraft companies entered the competition. Douglas offered a derivative of the A-4 Skyhawk with a larger airframe and powered by a TF30 turbofan. Grumman offered a single-seat variant of the A-6 Intruder (Model 128G-12). North American Aviation proposed a TF30-powered veresion of the AF-1E Fury. Ling-Temco-Vought (into which the Vought Corporation had merged in 1961) proposed the Model V-463, which was a shortened version of the F-8 Crusader fighter.
On February 11, 1964, it was announced that the Vought entry had won the competition. Although the award decision was certainly justified on its merits, some critics carped that the real reason why the V-463 won the contest was because the aircraft would be built in President Lyndon Johnson's home state.
Progress in the A-7 program was extremely rapid, and the first YA-7A (BuNo 152580) was rolled out of the factory on August 13, 1965.
The first operational A-7A squadron was VA-147, ... VA-147 received its first combat-ready A-7As in the autumn of 1967. VA-147 embarked upon its first combat cruise aboard the USS Ranger on November 4, 1967.
In FY 1967, the USAF had ordered a version of the Corsair II, designated A-7D. It differed from the Navy's Corsair II in several ways. For one, it was powered by the Allison TF41-A-1 turbofan engine, which was a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Spey. It offered a thrust of 14,500 pounds, over 2000 pounds greater than that of the TF30 that powered the Navy's Corsair IIs. Other changes included a heads-up display for the pilot, a new avionics package, upgraded hydraulic systems and brakes, and an M61 rotary cannon with 1000 rounds in place of the two single-barreled guns.
The Navy was sufficiently impressed with the increased power offered by the Spey, and decided to use this engine for its own version of the Corsair II. The designation A-7E was assigned, and this version was to succeed the A-7A in production.
The first Spey-powered A-7E flew for the first time on March 9, 1969.
A total of 535 A-7Es were built, the last one being delivered in 1983."
The A-7E was ordered before the "Improved F-14" was cancelled.
Is it your contention that the F-14B was, in the mid 1970s, to replace a virtually new type... 10 years after it first entered service, and 5 years after a major new version (which was still in production) began to be built?
I have never seen this contention anywhere before... please tell me where you found it? I would really like to know.
I have seen mention of "Quickstrike" and "Bombcat" versions of the F-14 as an "A-6 replacement"... but only in the 1990s, after the A-12 was cancelled!
I suspect that, if the F-14 had had the engine improvements and the A2G improvements planned for the -B, that the only change in the air wings would have been that the F-14B would have replaced the rest of the F-4s in the USN, and F/A-18 (or the proposed A-7F) would have replaced only the A-7 in the USN, but still replaced the F-4 in the USMC... as the cost of the Tomcat played as much of a role in the USMC rejection as did the lack of A2G.
Remember that part of the reason that the A-7 was built rather than more A-6s was that it was recognized that any CAS-oriented aircraft would suffer more losses than any other type, so they needed to be cheap and simple enough to quickly and affordably replace. (And that a single-pilot plane meant that only 1 crewman would be KIA/POW, rather than 2 as would be the case with the F-14.)
The F-14B would certainly not be either cheap or simple, and thus would be less likely to be risked in CAS missions than any other type in the Navy inventory.
If... and that is a big if... Grumman had won both the VAL and VSX competitions, then there would have been an "all Grumman air wing"... but the DOD's policy of ensuring the viability of multiple aircraft manufacturers would have prevented this... and probably did play a significant role in the historic awards of both those competitions to other companies than Grumman!
In summation, while I am sure that Grumman would have liked an "all Grumman air wing", it was never a plan of the USN or of the DOD.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 6th March 2007 at 08:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
artistic impression of the F-15N despite it is thought the F-15N could not fire the AIM-54, the reality is there was a variant of the F-15N named F-15N-PHX that could had fired the AIM-54
The Sea Flanker was indeed the solution the US navy rejected in the form of the F-15N
But today the F-18 and the MiG-29 have taken revenge with the Super Hornet F-18E and the MiG-35
By: Schorsch
- 6th March 2007 at 13:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-15N was just a paper proposal. Defense contracts mean lots of money, so normally all companies apply for any RFP. The F-15N would have some problems especially with landing speed. Considerable reqork of landing gear and addition of leading edge flaps are necessary. Note that the F-15N was considered as replacement of the F-14 after it was in service. This alternative was not cheaper and not better performing (the edge of the F-15 in some performance aspects are equalized by lower range). After all, the F-15N was for me just a cheap hit of McDD to atract some funds.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 6th March 2007 at 16:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-15N was just a paper proposal. Defense contracts mean lots of money, so normally all companies apply for any RFP. The F-15N would have some problems especially with landing speed. Considerable reqork of landing gear and addition of leading edge flaps are necessary. Note that the F-15N was considered as replacement of the F-14 after it was in service. This alternative was not cheaper and not better performing (the edge of the F-15 in some performance aspects are equalized by lower range). After all, the F-15N was for me just a cheap hit of McDD to atract some funds.
Schorsch
The F-15 and F-14 competed in the very early 1970s, there were proposals to navalized the F-15 or sell F-14s to the USAF, since both services were asking for two different aircraft trying to avoid the disaster the F-111 had when it was proposed to both the USAF and the US navy both services kept their custom built fighters.
Navalize an aircraft is not as difficult as it seems, the F-4, Su-27, MiG-29, F-35, Su-25, Rafale, Harrier show that turning a land based aircraft into a naval one is not impossible, in fact it might be even cheaper.
The Su-27 is an excellent example, the aircraft has better TWR than the F-14A, so it dispensed of catapults, the MiG-29 basicly remain the same aircraft when it was navalized, of course they were modified but still are the same airplane, the Rafale is the same.
Why did Russia navalize the Su-27 and MiG-29, and France the Rafale? well simply economic factors played an important role, the F-15 could had also been navalized if the US navy would had been really limited economically as was Russia and France is up to a degree.
France won`t built a second 4.5 generation naval fighter due to economic limitations, the Rafale M is a more practical solution rather than build a second specialized naval fighter.
The US could financed 4 fourth generation aircraft that basicly duplicated the F-15 and F-16 in naval variants
Inflation has limited the number of aircraft a nation can finance, the US could finance 4 fourth generation fighters, the former Soviet Union only 3, France only 2 and England 3 but all are international programs in partnership with the US, Germany, Italy or Spain.
The F-15 is the USAF equivalent of the F-14, however they decided economic woes were up to a level unimportant since the US had enough money to finace both.
By: eagle
- 6th March 2007 at 17:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how many AIM-54-like missiles do the Su-27K or MiG-29K carry? How much fuel?
The basic F-15N added roughly 3100 pounds to the F-15A weight. And that was just an (optimistic?) estimate by McD. This F-15N didnt have the Pheonix though.
A Navy study for a complete F-15N with Pheonix and associated systems estimated the weight at 10'000 pounds more than that of the F-15A. There goes the performance advantage of the F-15...
Then there are problems with drag from the huge missiles, narrow landing gear, higher landing speed, and higher angle of attack.
The F-4, Rafale and the F-35 were/are built as carrier planes right from the start btw, and the Harrier is a STOVL jet.
By: TOMCAT TERRITORY
- 6th March 2007 at 17:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mig-23MLD, the F-4 was designed for the USN FIRST and then adopted by the USAF. A navalized F-15 would not have been able to perform as well as the F-14. The F-15N would no be anywhere near Flanker capability. The F-14 was flying and in deveopment 2 full years before the Eagle so if anything it made more sense for the USAF to adopt the F-14 rather than the other way round. Also the fact that the Su-27 can launch without a catapult is a not an advantage - the actual load that can be carried by the Flanker is nowhere near what it is capable of. F-14 or any other aircraft would not be able to take-off with a useful load of fuel and weapons without a catapault. This is why USN and French carriers are fitted with them and why the USN is developing the electro-magnetic catapault. Work was done with the F-14 and ski-jumps but the USN never showed much interest in them. The Russian aircraft carrier program was intended to have a catapault but time and cost constraints prevented this. Lastly your continued contention that the F-14 is completely obsolete and that it's only reson for existence was the Phoenix is not accurate. If by your rules, the F-14 is obsolete then so is the F-15 and Su-27 as their job can also be done by newer smaller fighters - but you are entitled to your opinion. Also that model F-15 you posted is not based on act at all - I've read the article by the guy who built it and it's a pure thumb suck.
By: frankvw
- 6th March 2007 at 18:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Schorsch
Navalize an aircraft is not as difficult as it seems, the F-4, Su-27, MiG-29, F-35, Su-25, Rafale, Harrier show that turning a land based aircraft into a naval one is not impossible, in fact it might be even cheaper.
Wrong !
The F-4 was first a naval plane. The F-35 was concieved from the start for both roles + VTOL in mind, and the Rafale was also planned from the start as a carrierborne aircraft. Those aircraft have decent performance onboard a ship.
The Su & Mig were navalised later, and can take off without a catapult just thanks to their very high T/W ratio, and for the Su-27 also because of the added canards. And as Tomcat Territory mentionned, they can do it but only with limited payloads.
A plane that isn't designed from the start for carrier ops will most likely have serious limitations. On the other hand, a naval airplane derivative stripped down for land use will perform way better due to the weight advantage.
By: kilcoo316
- 6th March 2007 at 22:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Navalize an aircraft is not as difficult as it seems
No way man!!!
1. Lower take off speed, need alot more pitch up authority for rotation
2. Lower take off speed, need much better CLs from wing in max lift config
3. Electronic, Airframe and engine exposed to salt - all need corrosion protection
4. Undercarriage takes massive thumps on landing
5. Loadpaths for undercarriage transmits massive thumps on landing
6. Catapult
7. Load path for catapult
8. Engines need to provide much more thrust at much slower ambient flight speeds
9. Pilot needs a view of the flight deck on final approach
10. Aircraft needs to have excellent stability a low and slow flight regime, aileron induced wing stall a possible problem
11. Aircraft has to be stored in a cramped area, large wingspan an issue
Doubtless there are more, these are just off the top of my head.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 6th March 2007 at 23:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mig-23MLD, the F-4 was designed for the USN FIRST and then adopted by the USAF. A navalized F-15 would not have been able to perform as well as the F-14. The F-15N would no be anywhere near Flanker capability. The F-14 was flying and in deveopment 2 full years before the Eagle so if anything it made more sense for the USAF to adopt the F-14 rather than the other way round. Also the fact that the Su-27 can launch without a catapult is a not an advantage - the actual load that can be carried by the Flanker is nowhere near what it is capable of. F-14 or any other aircraft would not be able to take-off with a useful load of fuel and weapons without a catapault. This is why USN and French carriers are fitted with them and why the USN is developing the electro-magnetic catapault. Work was done with the F-14 and ski-jumps but the USN never showed much interest in them. The Russian aircraft carrier program was intended to have a catapault but time and cost constraints prevented this. Lastly your continued contention that the F-14 is completely obsolete and that it's only reson for existence was the Phoenix is not accurate. If by your rules, the F-14 is obsolete then so is the F-15 and Su-27 as their job can also be done by newer smaller fighters - but you are entitled to your opinion. Also that model F-15 you posted is not based on act at all - I've read the article by the guy who built it and it's a pure thumb suck.
TOMCAT TERRTORY
Let us see several aspects you are not seeing
The F-15 has a TWR as high as the Su-27`s TWR
This would had allowed to the F-15 a good carring capacity, it is true it would had added weight as it would had been navalized, but it would had also take off with the aid of a catapult, the F-14A has a very low TWR and a very slow rate of climb, the F-15N would had been more like a Su-33 in that sense since the land F-15 has a TWR of 1.2 at normal take off, contrary to the F-14A that has really a very low TWR even worst than the MiG-23MF in fact it only has a 1:0.9 TWR empty, fully loaded, it gets as bad as 1:0.5, so the F-14 is a really overweight and obese aircraft even compare to the F-15.
The F-15 has a better wing loading than the F-14A while the F-14A has a pancake fuselage generated lift, it also has a smaller wing, and it is heavier, also the Wing Pivots limit the G overload permitted and the F-14 was even limited to 6.5Gs due to the complexity and fragility associated with swing wings
F-14 Phoenix realities The F-14 can not land on the deck of an aircraft carrier with a load of six AIM-54 and it is restricted to a Max G load factor of 6Gs while carrying the AIM-54, so the F-14 armed with AIM-54 is not agile in fact is so limited that in agility it would be comparable to the MiG-31.
So i do not think the Naval F-15 would had been worst than the F-14, in fact i think it would had been better why? The F-14 empty weight is 18 tonns, the weight of the F-15N would had been less than 14tonns, the reality the VG wing imposes a weight penalty that is even noticeable just looking at the empty weight of the F-15A and the F-14A, the F-15A is 5 tonns lighter than the F-14A;)
So then why the F-15 never was purchased by the US navy? simply politics and enough money to burn, simply like that, Grumman needed the program, the US Navy could not back down since the future of Grumman was at stake and the US Government would had been resposible for Grumman`s bankarupcy.
The F-14A is inferior to the F-15A simply because as a whole the F-14 has two aspects that makes it more primitive than the F-15, one is older and less advanced engines and the other is weight penalty due to the VG wing
By: J Boyle
- 7th March 2007 at 00:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the reality the VG wing imposes a weight penalty that is even noticeable just looking at the empty weight of the F-15A and the F-14A, the F-15A is 5 tonns lighter than the F-14A;)
However, it should be remembered that the F-14 had provisions for a RIO and a larger avionics suite. This would account for some of the added weight along with special naval features such as strengthened landing gear and associated structure.
Clearly not all the added weight is due to the VG wing.
I wonder if Grumman ever proposed a fixed wing F-14 variant so a direct comparison could be made showing the weight penalty of the VG wing?
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 7th March 2007 at 00:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrong !
The F-4 was first a naval plane. The F-35 was concieved from the start for both roles + VTOL in mind, and the Rafale was also planned from the start as a carrierborne aircraft. Those aircraft have decent performance onboard a ship.
The Su & Mig were navalised later, and can take off without a catapult just thanks to their very high T/W ratio, and for the Su-27 also because of the added canards. And as Tomcat Territory mentionned, they can do it but only with limited payloads.
A plane that isn't designed from the start for carrier ops will most likely have serious limitations. On the other hand, a naval airplane derivative stripped down for land use will perform way better due to the weight advantage.
The Rafale, MiG-29 and the Su-27 were also planned from the start as naval aircraft, what you are not visualizing is the fact that the MiG-29, Rafale or Su-27 were just navalized because the USSR and France considered that building a specialized naval fighter without a land version would had been prohibitively expensive.
They decided that turning a land aircraft from the begining into a naval aircraft made more sense than building as the US did two different specialized aircraft like the F-14 and F-15 are and that basicly overlapped niches and in many ways would had done the job of each other respectively.
The F-15 could had been navalized and the F-14 deployed in the USAF.;)
In fact see that the Su-33 and MiG-29K flew several years before the Yak-141, but in many ways turning the F-15 into the F-15N would had not been more difficult than turning the MiG-29 into the MiG-29K or the Su-27B into the SU-33
Posts: 382
By: michelf - 5th March 2007 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tomcat T,
Interesting post...I do not however agree with you about Grumman not having the political clout of others...I think they had vast amounts of it, being the main supplier of NavAir products since WW2...beating MacAir.
They used up the vast majority of that support in getting the 14 to the deck....a not inconsiderable achievement.
But from all the material I have read I still believe that the inherent capabilties of the airframe were never exploited purely for political reasons. The overturning of a SecDef and DoD sponsired programme (F-111B) by the users was always going to haunt the F-14 programme and it ensured that NavAir were always going to be pitted against the DoD...and when the NavAir supporters were removed (as you say Tailhook) the programme was pretty much on the skids.
Nothing to do with capability and everything to do with power...
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 5th March 2007 at 19:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Schorsch
man please first do not tell me what i can or can not say, second what i said its true, why you need the F-14 in an age even the Gripen can be armed with Meteors and IRIS-Ts?
The american as the Europeans will arm their new fighters with air breathing missiles like the Meteor that have long range like the AIM-54 but that are lighter into newer and stealthier platforms like the F-35 and F-18E, also range is no problem with inflight refuelling so if you have air refuelling, Meteors or AIM-120D and AIM-9X who needs the F-14? the answer only fans, the US needs to develop and deploy better weapons and the F-14 can not be put it into production now, the F-14 in the 1970s and 1980s was good because it was needed it had capabilities no other fighters had but in 2007 it is obsolete
the question you have asked it is easy to understand, and always you will end up mentioning the F-18E, why because the US strategists know and knew the F-14 shortcomings and knew a cheaper weapon or newer weapons could replace the ageing F-14, in fact look once the F-18 was deployed the versatility the F-18 had proved enough to replace the F-14.
Here all the F-14 fans want to workship the F-14 in an altar, but see the reality, in 2007 there are better weapons, the F-14 never was a perfect machine, niether special, it was a good aircraft and in the 1970s was good but in 2007 it is old, could it had been upgraded? yes it could had but the US Navy saw more future to the F-18 because it is cheaper and more versatile.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 5th March 2007 at 19:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the factors that killed the F-14 was it was over specialized and basicly was only purchased due to the fact the US navy wanted their own fighter, The F-15 was better as a dogfighter and also had AIM-7, it could had been navalized, even carry AIM-54s but since the whole reason the F-14 remained a need was the AIM-54, once the AIM-54 became obsolete, the F-14 also became obsolete and unwanted
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 5th March 2007 at 20:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Michelf, I think you have something mixed up.
"(Remember that the envisaged Carrier Air Group by the mid -70s was only Grumman products, F-14s, A-6s and E-3s, with Sea Kings as the rotary wing component)"
The E-3 is a Boeing AWACS plane based on the 707 airliner. It could never operate from a carrier.
I think you meant either the E-2, which is a Grumman carrier-based AEW plane, and/or the Lockheed S-3 Viking... a carrier-based ASW plane which entered service in 1974.
Also, the Vought A-7E Corsair II was intended to see service throughout the 1970s, and into the early 1980s... as indeed it did.
The F-14 was NEVER intended to replace it, nor was the A-6, as it was designed and used for a different role than the A-7 (night/all-weather strike vs daylight CAS/light attack).
Thus, the carrier wing the USN planned to field in the last half of the 1970s, and the first half of the 1980s, while definitely dominated by Grumman designs, was certainly not a "only Grumman" air wing.
planned late 1970s air wing, by squadron:
2 Grumman F-14 (12 aircraft each) +3 TARPS-equipped F-14s [sometimes Vought RF-8G instead]
1 Grumman A-6E (10 aircraft + 4 KA-6D)
2 Vought A-7E (12 aircraft each)
1 Lockheed S-3A (10 aircraft)
1 Grumman EA-6B (4 aircraft)
1 Grumman E-2B/C (4 aircraft)
1 Douglas EA-3B (1 aircraft)
1 Sikorsky SH-3A/D (6 aircraft)
49-46 Grumman fixed-wing, 35-38 non-Grumman fixed-wing, 6 non-Grumman rotary-wing [Lockheed US-3A and Grumman C-2A COD aircraft were assigned to shore bases, not to the carrier air wing]
In reality, some ships had this, while others had 1 F-14 and 1 McD F-4 fighter squadron... while Coral Sea and Midway had 2 F-4 squadrons (too small to operate F-14s effectively).
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 5th March 2007 at 21:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow, out of 87 aircraft only 34 with attack capability!
Posts: 382
By: michelf - 5th March 2007 at 21:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MiG
Just for you to know that you have totally missed the point of the F-14 and its multi role capability.
As designed, envisaged and flight tested the 14 was both an A2A platform and an A2G platform with a long reach.. in terms of taking the missile far from the carrier group with minimal tanker support, being able to carry a heavy missile and being able to carry a heavy bomb load to the beach...
The requirement for 'dgofighting' with other fighters was limited as its two prime areas of operation were either blue water against bombers...or in operations such a Vietnam where interdiction against defended targets meant avoiding A2A or having cover from other assets.. like fighter configured BVR toting 14s on a CAP....the A2A capability at the time of conception was in excess of any realistic opponent...the ones which had a clear parity or were better only appear in the form of the MiG 29 and the Flanker. The USN didn't give monkeys about the F-15's A2A 'superiority', it couldn't, as designed, carry 6 Phoenixes, it was not carrier compatible and their actions with regard to the F-15 were justifed when the McAir proposal came back with very similar figures to the then flying F-14. An F-15N would not have been an F-15A or C....
(PS the Iranians purchased the F-14 because in their words... 'its agility and performance in the low speed manoeuvering demonstrations exceed the performance demonstrated by the F-15'. McAir protested that Grumman cheated in that demo...no, they stretched the rules as McAir had done for themselves earlier with the Streak Eagle, making implications that this was the 'Eagle' rather than a suitably modified version destined for records alone.....;) )
Remember also that at the time twin engines were viewed as essential for a blue water air group..so lightweight single engined comparisons are irrelevant.
The only fragment of reasonable arguement you put forward is that there are alternatives to the F-14 currently on the international market place which can take on some of the roles the F-14 was able to perform some 30 years ago....but that does not equate to the arguement that the F-14 was in some way lacking or deficient....
Bager,
Thanks for the heads up.. I meant Tomcat; Intruder and Hawkeye..not Sentry.
As for your listing of the actual CAG it is correct...but the intended Air Wing for the planned big deck carriers proposed additional F-14s tasked with A2G rather than additional A-7s (scrapped when the F-14 unit price increased after the bankrupcy issues and the B model was scrapped) a Hawkeye/ Greyhound derivative in the ASW role rather than the Lockheed Viking (it would still ahve been called Viking...This common airframe was the evolution of the S-2 Tracer/ C-1 Trader/ WF-2 line which had inhabited carrier decks previously.
This left the Sea Kings as the only non Grumman product....As you pointed out it didn't come true but it was the intention.
Remember at the time the US operated two distinct carrier types.. the Essex (no F-4s) and Midway classes which were unable to have the F-14..and the 'super carriers' Forrestal/ Nimitz classes (Enterprise being a single ship class) which were intended to have all the whistles and bells. The retirement of the Essexes was delayed by the Ops required in support of the Vietnam War and in the end the speed of procurement of the nuclear 'Forrestal class' was slowed down such that the Midways had to remain in service much longer than expected.
The mix of 4s and 14s was never intented, it was a result of the financial issues in the 14 programme.
With an all supercarrier fleet all CAGs would have been equiped with an all Grumman Air Wing....
But in the late 60s/ early 70s when the F-14 was the centre of so much attention that was the overall paradigm that prevailed....and it gives the perspective in which to try to understand the importance of the F-14 programme to the overall US military picture, and why when the 'Admirals Revolted' they were listened to and when Grumman went back to the DoD asking for more money to remain solvent they actually got what they needed...but they ended up paying a very heavy price for that action...one which had nothing to do with the performance of their products.
Posts: 4,450
By: frankvw - 5th March 2007 at 21:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So ?
The menace at that point was a horde of Bears, Badgers, Blinders and Mays attacking the CVBGs, or for the matter convoys and other surface assets. You needed the Electronic planes to 1) gather intelligence on where the ennemy was, 2) jam whatever was possible, and make its life difficult, and 3) guide the interceptors (the Tomcats) towards th missile carriers.
The A-7 would in that scenario be a last line of defense around the carrier.
The A-6 were attack planes, and if I'm not mistaken, nuke capable. They were giving a CVBG the punch to attack land targets, and 34 bombers were still more than what many airforces could field ... They of course had an anti surface capability.
The Vikings were used to hunt submarines, another plane that gets retired without replacement. And I'm not sure the helicopters always have the necessary range or speed to do the job.
In case the cold war turned hot, those planes wouldn't have made such a difference, as the ICBMs would most likely have been used before.
In the latest conflicts, a Carrier Air Group made of a majority of bombers makes sense as you don't see an aerial opposition, and the reduced range of the Hornets is less of an issue, as you don't have real coastal defenses. But if a situation arose where a country like China and the USA weregetting hostile, the CVBGs would be in trouble, because the planes lack the range, and the upper hand in the A2A area. A Carrier is immune as long as it is undetected. The nearest you get to the coast, the greater the risks are.
Posts: 904
By: kilcoo316 - 5th March 2007 at 23:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hit the brakes there MiG.
OK, the Phoenix as it stands now is obsolete.
Now, imagine what kind of ramjet you could put into a missile that size ;)
You've all of a sudden probably got double the range of the meteor (makes sense since the AIM-54 had at least double the range of the AIM-7). While efficiencies have improved, you can always use the space to give it more fuel, a bigger engine, a bigger warhead etc etc etc.
Compare like with like, not a 1970s missile with one designed 35+ years later!
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 6th March 2007 at 01:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
michelf
Before everybody thinks i am an F-14 hater i have to say i do love VG wing fighters, the F-14 is more much beatiful than the F-15, i do really like the F-14, it is my favorite american aircraft, i am an F-14 fan, and i miss the F-14
After i said that i want to analize this factor, the former Soviet Union only built 3 fourth generation fighters, the MiG-29, the Su-27 and the MiG-31, this contrasts with the americans who built four fourth generation types.
The MiG-29 basicly was the Soviet counter part for the F-16 and F-18 and the Su-27 was the counter part of the F-14 and F-15; the MiG-31 filled niches similar to the F-14, it was designed to kill bombers and cruise missiles, but never it was intented to design it as a naval fighter.
The Su-27 was navalized as the F-15 could have been, the MiG-29 was also navalized to be the Soviet counter part of the F-18.
The R-37 can be deployed by the Su-27 derivatives and basicly it is an AIM-54 counterpart.
The Soviet Union was never as wealthy as the USA, the US could built the F-14 only because their naval officcers wanted it, but in reality if the F-15 would had been navalized it would had had a better price than the F-14, the F-15 already has surpassed the 1500 aircraft built, would had it been navalized today we would say there would be close to 2500 F-15s deployed and operational.
I mean its unit priced would had been cheapened, however it never happened because contrary to Russia where the F-15 counter part was navalized, the F-15 was not, there was enough money in the US to justify the F-14 existence.
However see that the F-18 replaced the F-14 only because it also was cheaper than the F-15, so it was more logic to design an F-14 replacement from the F-18 than from the F-15.
Missiles like the Meteor are making cheap fighters like the SAAB JAS-39 great multirole aircraft as good as an F-14 at BVR combat or as good as the Panavia Tornado or F-15E in terms of the arsenal carried
The AIM-54 as the R-33 are heavy weapons that impose great drag and weight penalty to the carrier aircraft.
The 1960s and early 1970s technology forced aircraft designers to build large aircraft to carry them with relatively large radars and a second man crew, these missiles were intended to be used against mainly bombers such as the Tu-22M, B-1B and B-52 and their cruise missiles.
However in todays world that does not happen, the Meteor can be fire by smaller jets, modern technology has given great processing power enough to dispense of a second man crew in the JAS-39, the F-14 in fact has become obsolete, because now cheaper and smaller fighters can do its job.
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 6th March 2007 at 04:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Michelf... the Grumman ASW aircraft you describe was the Grumman entry in the competition that was won by the Lockheed S-3... not a design to replace it!
http://www.vectorsite.net/avs3.html
"In the 1960s, the Soviet Navy's switch to nuclear-powered submarines that rarely had to surface rendered existing US Navy antisubmarine warfare (ASW) assets, such as the Grumman S-2 Tracker carrier-based sub hunter, increasingly ineffective. In late 1966, after two years of consideration, the Navy issued a requirement for a new, more capable, carrier-based ASW aircraft under the "VSX" program. A team led by Lockheed beat a Grumman-led team, with the Lockheed team awarded a contract in August 1969 for development of the VSX as the twin-turbofan "S-3A".
The Lockheed team also included Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) and Univac Federal Systems. LTV was particularly important in the partnership, since Lockheed didn't have much experience in building carrier-based aircraft and needed LTV's assistance to get the job done right. LTV built the engine pods, landing gear, tail assembly and wings; Univac put together the ASW electronics suite; and Lockheed built the fuselage and performed final integration and test of all aircraft elements."
The next mention of any Grumman design for ASW comes in the mid-late 1990s, as part of the "Common Support Aircraft" program... right when the USN decided fixed-wing ASW was no longer needed aboard its carriers.
The A-7 was also the winner of a 1960s competition over a Grumman design:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/newa7.html
"The Ling-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II was the result of a May 17, 1963 Navy design competition named VAL, which stood for Light Attack Aircraft. The VAL aircraft was to replace the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and was to have as its primary mission the delivery of conventional ordnance as opposed to nuclear weapons. The aircraft was to have a single seat, and the requirement specified that the aircraft would have to be in service no later than 1967.
Only four aircraft companies entered the competition. Douglas offered a derivative of the A-4 Skyhawk with a larger airframe and powered by a TF30 turbofan. Grumman offered a single-seat variant of the A-6 Intruder (Model 128G-12). North American Aviation proposed a TF30-powered veresion of the AF-1E Fury. Ling-Temco-Vought (into which the Vought Corporation had merged in 1961) proposed the Model V-463, which was a shortened version of the F-8 Crusader fighter.
On February 11, 1964, it was announced that the Vought entry had won the competition. Although the award decision was certainly justified on its merits, some critics carped that the real reason why the V-463 won the contest was because the aircraft would be built in President Lyndon Johnson's home state.
Progress in the A-7 program was extremely rapid, and the first YA-7A (BuNo 152580) was rolled out of the factory on August 13, 1965.
The first operational A-7A squadron was VA-147, ... VA-147 received its first combat-ready A-7As in the autumn of 1967. VA-147 embarked upon its first combat cruise aboard the USS Ranger on November 4, 1967.
In FY 1967, the USAF had ordered a version of the Corsair II, designated A-7D. It differed from the Navy's Corsair II in several ways. For one, it was powered by the Allison TF41-A-1 turbofan engine, which was a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Spey. It offered a thrust of 14,500 pounds, over 2000 pounds greater than that of the TF30 that powered the Navy's Corsair IIs. Other changes included a heads-up display for the pilot, a new avionics package, upgraded hydraulic systems and brakes, and an M61 rotary cannon with 1000 rounds in place of the two single-barreled guns.
The Navy was sufficiently impressed with the increased power offered by the Spey, and decided to use this engine for its own version of the Corsair II. The designation A-7E was assigned, and this version was to succeed the A-7A in production.
The first Spey-powered A-7E flew for the first time on March 9, 1969.
A total of 535 A-7Es were built, the last one being delivered in 1983."
The A-7E was ordered before the "Improved F-14" was cancelled.
Is it your contention that the F-14B was, in the mid 1970s, to replace a virtually new type... 10 years after it first entered service, and 5 years after a major new version (which was still in production) began to be built?
I have never seen this contention anywhere before... please tell me where you found it? I would really like to know.
I have seen mention of "Quickstrike" and "Bombcat" versions of the F-14 as an "A-6 replacement"... but only in the 1990s, after the A-12 was cancelled!
I suspect that, if the F-14 had had the engine improvements and the A2G improvements planned for the -B, that the only change in the air wings would have been that the F-14B would have replaced the rest of the F-4s in the USN, and F/A-18 (or the proposed A-7F) would have replaced only the A-7 in the USN, but still replaced the F-4 in the USMC... as the cost of the Tomcat played as much of a role in the USMC rejection as did the lack of A2G.
Remember that part of the reason that the A-7 was built rather than more A-6s was that it was recognized that any CAS-oriented aircraft would suffer more losses than any other type, so they needed to be cheap and simple enough to quickly and affordably replace. (And that a single-pilot plane meant that only 1 crewman would be KIA/POW, rather than 2 as would be the case with the F-14.)
The F-14B would certainly not be either cheap or simple, and thus would be less likely to be risked in CAS missions than any other type in the Navy inventory.
If... and that is a big if... Grumman had won both the VAL and VSX competitions, then there would have been an "all Grumman air wing"... but the DOD's policy of ensuring the viability of multiple aircraft manufacturers would have prevented this... and probably did play a significant role in the historic awards of both those competitions to other companies than Grumman!
In summation, while I am sure that Grumman would have liked an "all Grumman air wing", it was never a plan of the USN or of the DOD.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 6th March 2007 at 08:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
artistic impression of the F-15N
despite it is thought the F-15N could not fire the AIM-54, the reality is there was a variant of the F-15N named F-15N-PHX that could had fired the AIM-54
source http://www.afwing.com/intro/f15/5.htm
The Sea Flanker was indeed the solution the US navy rejected in the form of the F-15N
But today the F-18 and the MiG-29 have taken revenge with the Super Hornet F-18E and the MiG-35
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 6th March 2007 at 13:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-15N was just a paper proposal. Defense contracts mean lots of money, so normally all companies apply for any RFP. The F-15N would have some problems especially with landing speed. Considerable reqork of landing gear and addition of leading edge flaps are necessary. Note that the F-15N was considered as replacement of the F-14 after it was in service. This alternative was not cheaper and not better performing (the edge of the F-15 in some performance aspects are equalized by lower range). After all, the F-15N was for me just a cheap hit of McDD to atract some funds.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 6th March 2007 at 16:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Schorsch
The F-15 and F-14 competed in the very early 1970s, there were proposals to navalized the F-15 or sell F-14s to the USAF, since both services were asking for two different aircraft trying to avoid the disaster the F-111 had when it was proposed to both the USAF and the US navy both services kept their custom built fighters.
Navalize an aircraft is not as difficult as it seems, the F-4, Su-27, MiG-29, F-35, Su-25, Rafale, Harrier show that turning a land based aircraft into a naval one is not impossible, in fact it might be even cheaper.
The Su-27 is an excellent example, the aircraft has better TWR than the F-14A, so it dispensed of catapults, the MiG-29 basicly remain the same aircraft when it was navalized, of course they were modified but still are the same airplane, the Rafale is the same.
Why did Russia navalize the Su-27 and MiG-29, and France the Rafale? well simply economic factors played an important role, the F-15 could had also been navalized if the US navy would had been really limited economically as was Russia and France is up to a degree.
France won`t built a second 4.5 generation naval fighter due to economic limitations, the Rafale M is a more practical solution rather than build a second specialized naval fighter.
The US could financed 4 fourth generation aircraft that basicly duplicated the F-15 and F-16 in naval variants
Inflation has limited the number of aircraft a nation can finance, the US could finance 4 fourth generation fighters, the former Soviet Union only 3, France only 2 and England 3 but all are international programs in partnership with the US, Germany, Italy or Spain.
The F-15 is the USAF equivalent of the F-14, however they decided economic woes were up to a level unimportant since the US had enough money to finace both.
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 6th March 2007 at 17:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how many AIM-54-like missiles do the Su-27K or MiG-29K carry? How much fuel?
The basic F-15N added roughly 3100 pounds to the F-15A weight. And that was just an (optimistic?) estimate by McD. This F-15N didnt have the Pheonix though.
A Navy study for a complete F-15N with Pheonix and associated systems estimated the weight at 10'000 pounds more than that of the F-15A. There goes the performance advantage of the F-15...
Then there are problems with drag from the huge missiles, narrow landing gear, higher landing speed, and higher angle of attack.
The F-4, Rafale and the F-35 were/are built as carrier planes right from the start btw, and the Harrier is a STOVL jet.
Posts: 65
By: TOMCAT TERRITORY - 6th March 2007 at 17:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mig-23MLD, the F-4 was designed for the USN FIRST and then adopted by the USAF. A navalized F-15 would not have been able to perform as well as the F-14. The F-15N would no be anywhere near Flanker capability. The F-14 was flying and in deveopment 2 full years before the Eagle so if anything it made more sense for the USAF to adopt the F-14 rather than the other way round. Also the fact that the Su-27 can launch without a catapult is a not an advantage - the actual load that can be carried by the Flanker is nowhere near what it is capable of. F-14 or any other aircraft would not be able to take-off with a useful load of fuel and weapons without a catapault. This is why USN and French carriers are fitted with them and why the USN is developing the electro-magnetic catapault. Work was done with the F-14 and ski-jumps but the USN never showed much interest in them. The Russian aircraft carrier program was intended to have a catapault but time and cost constraints prevented this. Lastly your continued contention that the F-14 is completely obsolete and that it's only reson for existence was the Phoenix is not accurate. If by your rules, the F-14 is obsolete then so is the F-15 and Su-27 as their job can also be done by newer smaller fighters - but you are entitled to your opinion. Also that model F-15 you posted is not based on act at all - I've read the article by the guy who built it and it's a pure thumb suck.
Posts: 4,450
By: frankvw - 6th March 2007 at 18:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrong !
The F-4 was first a naval plane. The F-35 was concieved from the start for both roles + VTOL in mind, and the Rafale was also planned from the start as a carrierborne aircraft. Those aircraft have decent performance onboard a ship.
The Su & Mig were navalised later, and can take off without a catapult just thanks to their very high T/W ratio, and for the Su-27 also because of the added canards. And as Tomcat Territory mentionned, they can do it but only with limited payloads.
A plane that isn't designed from the start for carrier ops will most likely have serious limitations. On the other hand, a naval airplane derivative stripped down for land use will perform way better due to the weight advantage.
Posts: 904
By: kilcoo316 - 6th March 2007 at 22:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No way man!!!
1. Lower take off speed, need alot more pitch up authority for rotation
2. Lower take off speed, need much better CLs from wing in max lift config
3. Electronic, Airframe and engine exposed to salt - all need corrosion protection
4. Undercarriage takes massive thumps on landing
5. Loadpaths for undercarriage transmits massive thumps on landing
6. Catapult
7. Load path for catapult
8. Engines need to provide much more thrust at much slower ambient flight speeds
9. Pilot needs a view of the flight deck on final approach
10. Aircraft needs to have excellent stability a low and slow flight regime, aileron induced wing stall a possible problem
11. Aircraft has to be stored in a cramped area, large wingspan an issue
Doubtless there are more, these are just off the top of my head.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 6th March 2007 at 23:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TOMCAT TERRTORY
Let us see several aspects you are not seeing
The F-15 has a TWR as high as the Su-27`s TWR
This would had allowed to the F-15 a good carring capacity, it is true it would had added weight as it would had been navalized, but it would had also take off with the aid of a catapult, the F-14A has a very low TWR and a very slow rate of climb, the F-15N would had been more like a Su-33 in that sense since the land F-15 has a TWR of 1.2 at normal take off, contrary to the F-14A that has really a very low TWR even worst than the MiG-23MF in fact it only has a 1:0.9 TWR empty, fully loaded, it gets as bad as 1:0.5, so the F-14 is a really overweight and obese aircraft even compare to the F-15.
The F-15 has a better wing loading than the F-14A while the F-14A has a pancake fuselage generated lift, it also has a smaller wing, and it is heavier, also the Wing Pivots limit the G overload permitted and the F-14 was even limited to 6.5Gs due to the complexity and fragility associated with swing wings
F-14 Phoenix realities The F-14 can not land on the deck of an aircraft carrier with a load of six AIM-54 and it is restricted to a Max G load factor of 6Gs while carrying the AIM-54, so the F-14 armed with AIM-54 is not agile in fact is so limited that in agility it would be comparable to the MiG-31.
So i do not think the Naval F-15 would had been worst than the F-14, in fact i think it would had been better why? The F-14 empty weight is 18 tonns, the weight of the F-15N would had been less than 14tonns, the reality the VG wing imposes a weight penalty that is even noticeable just looking at the empty weight of the F-15A and the F-14A, the F-15A is 5 tonns lighter than the F-14A;)
So then why the F-15 never was purchased by the US navy? simply politics and enough money to burn, simply like that, Grumman needed the program, the US Navy could not back down since the future of Grumman was at stake and the US Government would had been resposible for Grumman`s bankarupcy.
The F-14A is inferior to the F-15A simply because as a whole the F-14 has two aspects that makes it more primitive than the F-15, one is older and less advanced engines and the other is weight penalty due to the VG wing
Posts: 9,823
By: J Boyle - 7th March 2007 at 00:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
However, it should be remembered that the F-14 had provisions for a RIO and a larger avionics suite. This would account for some of the added weight along with special naval features such as strengthened landing gear and associated structure.
Clearly not all the added weight is due to the VG wing.
I wonder if Grumman ever proposed a fixed wing F-14 variant so a direct comparison could be made showing the weight penalty of the VG wing?
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 7th March 2007 at 00:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Rafale, MiG-29 and the Su-27 were also planned from the start as naval aircraft, what you are not visualizing is the fact that the MiG-29, Rafale or Su-27 were just navalized because the USSR and France considered that building a specialized naval fighter without a land version would had been prohibitively expensive.
They decided that turning a land aircraft from the begining into a naval aircraft made more sense than building as the US did two different specialized aircraft like the F-14 and F-15 are and that basicly overlapped niches and in many ways would had done the job of each other respectively.
The F-15 could had been navalized and the F-14 deployed in the USAF.;)
In fact see that the Su-33 and MiG-29K flew several years before the Yak-141, but in many ways turning the F-15 into the F-15N would had not been more difficult than turning the MiG-29 into the MiG-29K or the Su-27B into the SU-33