It isn't a trivial matter to navalize a land- based tactical aircraft (especially a fighter). This is why it's been so rarely successful. It requires not only beefier landing gear, enlarged and folding wings, and a tailhook, but also a stronger airframe and special design attention to saltwater corrosion. Usually by the time you do this, your fighter has lost all or most of its performance due to weight penalties. In contrast all carrier based aircraft are land compatible out of the gate, which is why you see so many successful land based tactical aircraft that were originally carrier designs. I suspect that had McDD ever brought the F-15N to fruition, it would've proven both less capable and more expensive than the F-14.
and you are exactly right, you need only look at the YF-17, modifying that design into the F/A-18 cost it dearly when it came to operational capabilities, the YF-17 was truly an impressive machine, a real fighter plane, the ONLY reason why the YF-16 was chosen over it was the extra cost of the YF-17 due to it's 2 engines over the single engine of the YF-16, which the Air Force already owned the engines, which is why the original F-16's were so cheap, BUT modifying the YF-17 airframe, into the F/A-18 used the same F-404 engines as the YF-17, but the F/A-18 ended up being 9,000 pounds heavier, due to the wings being redesigned, to be come "MULTI MISSION" wing pylons were added to provide for air to ground weapons, something that the YF-16 or the YF-17 were NEVER designed for, the performance of the F/A-18, is abysmal compared to that of the YF-17, it was a REALLY terrible idea, and it would have affected the F-15 even worse.
I was at an airshow in the Midwest in 1987, saw an F-14 on the tarmac, pilot taking questions. He answered one to the effect "Only one aircraft in the world can beat us". I blurted out "F-15"... he just smiled knowingly. Yep, thought so.
You know, i actually remember seeing a photo of some declassified early blueprints for the F-14, and apparently the Grumman design team apparently started out by using fixed wings, the tomcat pretty much looked like an F-15 with a longer neck
If the F-15N-PHX were to really weigh 9000lbs more than the standard F-15A, it would mean that the F-15N-PHX would've weighed almost the same as the F-14A. Had it been fitted with the PW F100-PW100 like the standard F-15A, it would have had the same thrust-to-weight ratio as the F-14A. In which case, in a F-14A vs F-15N-PHX BFM dogfight, my money's on the F-14A, given the same T/W ratio, but superior wing loading. (As long as the TF30 didn't flame out that is)
@@joemaloney1019 oooo, that was a should-have-been version of the Eagle. I’m guessing there’s something to Growling Sidewinder using this AFTI Eagle to consistently kill a Raptor, within DCS. Also, too, with Grim Reapers.
9000 pounds does not sound right...considering the F15 weighed 28,000 empty, I highly doubt some structural strengthening, tail hook, new gear, and folding wing tip mechanisms would add an extra 30% of the total weight of the stock aircraft....As far as landing speeds, I'm seeing both the F15 and F14 have a 125 knot optimal landing speed. The F15 body has a lot of lifting body elements to it.
About the F-111B, Grumman was already the subcontractor to General Dynamics, an d was in charge of the F-111B project. I do think that their experience with the F-111B was what gave inspiration to the F-14 Tomcat.
The swing wing component of the aardvark was the heart of the Tomcat. They designed the bird around it. Just like the warthog 2 was designed around the gun.
The reason for the swing wing was for carrier landing speeds when the fighter had to carry the Phoenix missile. For a fighter to carry the missiles and fuel and still be able to land on a carrier they had to get the landing speed down.
General Dynamics and Grumman shared information on the swing wing F-111 technology. Ed Nash stated that the $400 mil. in development for the F-111B was used for the Tomcat in the form of the AWG-9 and the TF-30 engines. But GD also worked with Grumman on wind tunnel design as well as the structure and other design features that would help Grumman build a successful alternative to the F-111B. GD had already won the F-111 contract with the USAF so there were no sour grapes on their part. It's not like they were forced to hand over technology to a rival company after losing a bid. A decade later GD would come up with the F-16 and the rest is history!
Most of the cost involved the swing-wing design and its extremely expensive titanium electron-beam-welded carry-through wing box structure. I wish more people talked about this, as it’s kinda it’s own marvel of engineering - especially for the time. Anyways, that swing-wing is the key here. It’s why the Tomcat was so much more expensive, but also why it was so flexible. I HIGHLY doubt that the “sea eagle” would have had even acceptable low-speed handling performance for the USN, the F-14 was just incredible in that regard. You just don’t get a big Mach 2.3+ two-seat strike aircraft to land at 130mph, that was (and is) just amazing - PLUS it would still out-turn an F-15 at certain speeds (a good tomcat pilot would know / use these min. radius turn figures.) It really was an amazing machine, and I highly recommend everyone watch the Peninsula Srs. video mentioned in the comments. FWIW that channel has many other fascinating lectures and interviews as well, from the space shuttle to the SR-71. 👍
Agreed. And agree w your recommendation for the Peninsula Srs channel. The aerospace content from the engineers, technicians, pilots, and historians is amazing and undersold.
What's with the snide against the Su-27? I think it is the most beautiful of all modern fighter jets and the way they managed to decrease the wing loading without increasing drag by making the body create lift and act as a 3rd wing is quite ingenious, kind of a "eat your cake and still have it"-thing, as anyone who knows something about aircraft design and the necessary trade-offs and compromises made between maneuverability/wing loading and speed/low drag knows and should be able to appreciate. That is quite a feat, from an engineering perspective. Add to that the enormous internal fuel capacity making external drop tanks optional instead of mandatory and that despite being more maneuverable, it still has a decent max speed and it is a very impressive machine, at least in theory. It might be let down by the avionics, radar and the training levels of the pilots flying it, or the commanding officers deciding how it is flown and when, but it arguably is the better aircraft, compared to the comparably simple "modern boom and zoom fighter with a big radar"-design of the F-15. And no, I'm not a Russian troll or military fanboy. I am a interested outsider from a country that neither operates F-15, nor any variant of the Su and have no personal, nationalistic dog in that game. Subjectively, as a "aircraft porn pervert", I like both. The F-14, not so much to be honest. It always looked too bulky to me and kind of lazy in its design. It looks like something a amateur using a 3d modeling software to design his own fighter aircraft would come up with. Just 2 engines with a cockpit and all the other stuff a fighter needs slapped on to it in kind of a slapdash "good enough to work" matter. It is nowhere near as elegant as a Su-27, which looks like a mix between a eagle, a crane and a shark. I think without the original Top Gun movie, only a small niche minority among military aircraft fans would count it as one of their favorites. In that regard it kind of is like the "Paris Hilton" of fighter jets. People find her sexy because the media told them so but nobody really can explain why they ride the bandwagon of finding her hot. Yeah, Paris Hilton is a 20 year late, dated reference, but I don't know enough about modern "sex symbols" to make the comparison with a more up to date example, hehe.
Wow! Who allowed "Ivan" on this line? The only people that think any Sukhoi jets are "Beautiful" would also think Klingon females are beautiful. It's pretty clear that the designers at the Sukhoi bureau were fans of the Tomcat. Look at the large cockpit and canopy area of the two seat Flanker. The large widely spaced wedge intakes and the tall twin vertical stabs over the twin engines. Except for the complicated swing wing we can tell who they were trying to improve upon. Certainly not an improved version of any Soviet design, but an American design. The Tomcat has the engines spaced apart to create an aero-tunnel and its perfect for reducing drag when you're carrying weapons - particularly large Phoenix missiles and 2,000 lbs. JDAMS. She's a big girl, I'll give you that but she's got it where it counts. You may like the Flanker more and I'll support your right to bad taste, but if the Russkies were so smart, why are they always behind the U.S. when it comes to design innovation? Dosvidanya, tavarisch! 🕌
@@edselreynoso3438 I'm German, not even East-German. Just so you can at least use the right dumb nationalistic insults. I suppose you can't argue over aesthetics, but the Su-27 is objectively elegant and beautiful and to say otherwise is just silly. "Aero tunnels" do not reduce drag. There are reasons for why people designing aircraft almost always try to avoid aircraft having too much surface area, which is why you usually try to put the engines near the main body of the aircraft. The Su-27 is a exception because as I said, they designed the body as sort of a 3rd wing, so it would create additional lift and reduce the wing loading on the actual wings. For that they had to put the engines outside of the main body, so to say. I don't particularly like Russians either and Russian military nerds were among the most obnoxious people you could run into online, in my opinion (only topped by British military nerds trying to tell you that the rifled gun on the Challenger 2 tank supposedly was superior to the smooth bore guns on other MBTs), but this is a historical fact anyone who knows something about military aircraft design is aware of. So there goes your silly idea of the Su-27 being a ripoff of the F-14. Outside of them needing a place to put the Phoenix missiles, there is no aerodynamic reason for the "aero tunnel" on the F-14.
Thanks for your response. I was a little more juvenile than usual with my initial response. I have a very strong bias since I retired from the USAF years ago. I remember having these arguments with my high school friends back in the '80s about which fighter could beat the other (F-14, F-15, and F-16) as if we really knew from first hand experience one way or the other. How silly it all is. You articulated your case very well and have made me reconsider the Flanker in technical aerodynamic terms. I too think, in a weird way, the Flanker has some nice lines for being such a big girl. I even have a couple of models of her in my stash waiting to be built up. They are impressive and formidable birds. I'm glad I could contribute to the conversation by seeing who has conviction to back up their opinions. well done mate.
@@edselreynoso3438 You are obviously blinded by national bias. The only actually ugly aircraft the Russians built after WW2 is the Mi-28 attack helicopter, because they wante to beat the AH-64 Apache in ugliness. All of their jet fighter and bomber designs look better than their American counterparts. The F-15 by the way looks almost like a 1:1 copy of the MiG-25 with its huge, boxy air intakes (both great-looking planes, btw.) and the Su-27 maybe inspired by the F-15 but its lines are way more elegant. The Su-27 and the MiG-29 series are objectively beautiful aircraft.
RE: the lecture by the F-14 designer at 3:05. Any airplane can "take" another in the right circumstances. However under most circumstances the F-15 had superior maneuverability. This is only natural, as the F-14 was handicapped by the weight and wing needed for the fleet defense role the F-15 did not have to perform.
There are accounts online of many mock dogfights between the two with the 14 taking the edge. The cat could be flown in a dangerous and aggressive manner that let it out rate fight anything in the air.
@@30AndHatingIt You should read more carefully. No one ever said an F-14 could never beat an F-15, only that the F-15 is overall the more maneuverable aircraft. As it should be, having been optimized for that attribute, while the F-14 had to meet more varied requirements. They don’t call them the laws of physics for no reason. BTW, there are all sorts of accounts online about everything, including visits by flying saucers. There is actually a web page by an experienced F-14 pilot who claims the airplane was not really that good at dogfighting because it wasn’t designed for that. He’s wrong, of course, but that extreme example illustrates the validity of internet accounts. My statement was based on face-to-face discussions with multiple F-14 and F-15 pilots about dogfighting in these aircraft. But F-14 fanboys will remain fanboys.
@@gort8203 This argument is rooted an an oversimplification of the term 'maneuverability'. The F-14 was the best 'rate' fighter in existence, while the F-15 was the best 'energy' fighter. Any F-15 (or any other fighter) driver foolish enough to allow himself to get sucked into a turning engagement against an F-14 at 340 kts and below would lose to the Tomcat guaranteed. Any fighter on the planet engaging an F-15 at 420 kts or above would lose to the Eagle guaranteed. The F-14 could and often did beat the F-15 in 1v1 engagements, mainly due to F-15 pilots attempting to turn with them... but overall the F-15 was the better overall air superiority fighter and would come out on top *so long as* it didn't fight by the F-14's rules.
@@GoSlash27 No, this argument is rooted in an unwillingness to accept the consensus of reality, and a desire to twist the argument into one you can win. You can argue all the ifs ands or buts you want all day long. The truth is that the F-15 has superior overall maneuverability to the F-14, as it should considering what these aircraft were designed to do. You must not think that USAF would have specified a heavier aircraft with a VG wing on the same thrust if it would have given the F-15 more maneuverability. They looked at that for the F-15 and discarded it because it was inferior. End of story for those of us who accept reality, but you seem to think Grumman worked magic that overcame the laws of physics. Have a nice day.
@@gort8203 Uhh... I never came here looking to 'win' anything, so you might want to check your mirror. ;) I'm just stating the facts. Had you actually taken the time to read my comment instead of furiously assaulting your keyboard, you would've realized that everything I said actually agreed with you. Have a nice day :)
...another great vid. I'm glad that this channel is getting the views that it deserves- personally, I look forward to each post, as I'm a fan of aviation in general, and the uncommon aircraft that are rarely covered, in particular) Cheers!
Ed, the Fokker S-14, one of the world's first (if not THE first) dedicated jet training aircraft, and yet largely forgotten by everyone. This would be interesting.
Thanks, Ed. Never knew about the F-15N! But even if it had come to pass I have a feeling the F-15N would have met the same fate as the F-14 (for the same reasons), and would have been replaced by the F-18 anyways.
It was the cost of maintenance that did the F-14 in. The F-15 costs far less to look after than the Tomcat ever did. A naval version would be little different in that regard.
Only reason the F-14 was retired is because Dick Cheney didn't get a pay off from Grumman. The super Tomcat 21 would have been a far superior aircraft to the super Hornet. And the super Tomcat 22 would have been he ultimate naval stealth fighter.
Given the heavy weight of the AIM-54 Phoenixes, the F-15N Sea Eagle would have been more suited as a naval dogfighter with its AIM-9 Sidewinders, AIM-7 Sparrows, and AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Still, it would have been interesting to imagine an alternate timeline in which the Sea Eagle and Tomcat are flying alongside together for the United States Navy.
For some time it was consdered to give the F-16 'sea-legs' too...! In the 1980, when the Navy was looking for a replacement for their ageing 'Buckeyes' France and Germany proposed a navalized version of the Alpha-Jet... With 2 engines it would be saver over sea... But it wasn't th happen... 🙁 The winner was the BEA Hawk, that became the T-45...! 😢 P.S. Would be nice to have a serie about (good) planes, that didn't make it, like the mentioned F-15N Sea-Eagle, the double-seated A-10 'Night-Warthog' or the YF-12 'Blackbird-Fighter'...
Also, I disagree with the idea that the F-15N would've still been in service today had it been selected. The Legacy Hornet, developed a full decade *after* the F-15, is now retired. Carrier operation is a lot more punishing to airframes than land based operation and they eventually wear out.
@@DIREWOLFx75 I don't see how it could possibly take more abuse since it wasn't built to withstand severe punishment while the Hornet was. For sure no F-15 has ever been subjected to the violent impacts and structural shocks that the F-18 was subjected to daily over decades of service. Whoever told you this... I have no idea how they could even begin to compare the 'durability' of the two airframes, let alone draw such a conclusion. I don't even know how they'd be in a position to compare the two since they never operated together.
@@DIREWOLFx75 Having worked phase dock in the late 80's, the A's and B's would have needed a lot of work to survive one carrier landing. By the 1200 hrs the landing gear were prone to cracking, the mounting structure was usually stretched, the nose longerons were often cracked, and the wing leading edges where starting to peel off. The F18's that I saw appeared to have much more structure around the landing gear fo a much smaller acft.
@@kaionski1105 Yeah, that kinda goes without saying. No F-15 would have ever survived even a single carrier launch or landing in stock form let alone decades of them. The spindly little landing gear would've snapped like twigs. But the airframe itself.... Could *it* have survived the stresses of carrier ops with all the necessary landing gear, tailhook, etc without heavy modification? I highly doubt it, since it wasn't designed or built to handle that sort of abuse.
One thing that is seldom mentioned is, by the time the F-15's frame is strengthened for carrier operations, change some materials to fight off the corrosive effects of saltwater exposure, the weight gain of the F-15N offset any projected advantages the F-15A had over the F-14A. The F-14D's performance came close to matching the F-15C when the F-14Ds received the new GE F-110 engines. NOW, the F-14As ability to take-off from the carrier, goes several hundred miles, time of patrol station to intercept the Tu-95s with anti-ship missiles, the F-14 would still be better interceptor.
This and the Vought V-1600 are some of the goofiest proposals that probably would've worked somewhat decently. Speaking of, any plans to do a video on the V-1600 and possibly F/A-18L?
I'm a big F14 fan but the initial engines were so underpowered they were dangerous. The aircraft was designed in conjunction with to carry the AIM54 Phoenix AA missile which had a huge range and glided to it's target. The use of the AIM 54 goes against normal fighter doctrine to fly high and shoot down, when it became public that if they were going to use that weapon they would go low and fire upwards to avoid heat sources was incredible. It was then that the problem of identifying your target over that range made that weapon impossible to use. The F14 had a brilliant gun cam but it couldn't see 120 miles. There were also so many service issues as it was a complicated aircraft that eventually the F18 and the super took over it;s roll especially as both amraam & sidewinder missiles had huge range increases.
Its more about the pilot. I once watched an ANG F-4 phantom kick the crap out of a Navy F-14 in what could best be described as a "guns only dogfight challenge". The old F-4 got behind the F-14 and there was nothing the F-14 could do.
As always a great amazing very interesting video about an aircraft I knew nothing about Mr.Ed.Not that I do not like the videos about the canvas and wicket two storey biplanes but something with a bit of electric circuitry is welcome indeed. Can you make some videos about the C130 A400M or the soviet four engined turbo prop transport planes? Have a good one and I find the fact that the F14 had the nose camera capable of identifying targets 40kilometers away mind blowing.
it would have given the naval air wing some serious legs if it had remained in service into the modern day. The newer F-15 variants have massive fuel capacity and flight time.
The failure of the F-111B has become a mythical narrative on the internet. The reality is that the Navy changed its mind about the roles its next fighter needed to perform. The lessons of the TFX program are commonly misinterpreted, but if you repeat a narrative for decades it becomes "truth". The idea that one basic airframe could fulfill two different roles was not a dumb idea at all. History is full of examples of aircraft that were versatile enough to fly for different services and even perform different missions. The original requirements presented by the Navy and USAF were not incompatible, but the requirements changed.
Initially the TFX program was reasonable because USAF and USN were both asking for a large aircraft that could lift a heavy load of fuel and weapons, with long range or long loiter, plus high-speed dash or intercept. Twin engines and an innovative variable geometry wing were called for, and DOD logically assessed that it would be wasteful to develop two very expensive advanced airframes when a single one with some variations could do both jobs. The reason one basic airframe could do both jobs was because the original USN specification was for a fleet defense fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It was not originally intended to be what later became the F-14, but to perform the role meant for the Douglas F6D Missileer, with the addition of supersonic dash capability. I was never meant to be a dogfighter. The biggest difference between the airframe requirements of the two services was that USAF wanted a tandem cockpit and USN want side by side seating. Boeing tried to make both services happy, but MacNamara’s DOD thought USAF could suck it up and have the crew sit side by side. This is ironic considering that when the Navy cancelled its version USAF was stuck with the cockpit it didn’t want, which also ironically contributed to the airplane being too ungainly for a dogfighter. But if the Navy had expected the F-111 to be a dogfighter it would not have insisted on the side-by-side cockpit over the objection of the Air Force. The F-111 cockpit was suitable for a radar interceptor, but not for an air superiority fighter. The original idea wasn’t dumb -- what happened was that needs changed. USN revised its needs as result of combat experience in Vietnam, and realized they also needed an air superiority fighter to replace the F-8 and F-4, but couldn’t afford that in addition to a dedicated fleet defense aircraft. Thus, the TFX would now have to be able to dogfight as well as be a missile interceptor. The F-111B could have worked as a missileer, but it was too fat and underpowered to compete as an air superiority fighter. It was proper of the Navy to recognize that its needs had evolved. This was perhaps the beginning of the Navy realizing that budgets and hangar decks did not have room for so many specialized aircraft. USAF desperately needed the F-111 to replace the F-105, so they sucked it up and accepted the heavy airframe caused by the loveseat cockpit they never wanted.
while the F-15N concept made sense, i wouldnt see the Navy buying an Air Force design (althought vice versa it was sometimes the case, just look at the F-4, A-7 and the A-3/EB-66 among others, although these were exceptional cases).
Ed would you be able to cover the DAR-10? Its a Bulgarian WW2 Light bomber, but due to lack of ablity and mitivation i couldn't find much info other than that on Wikipedia.
Grumman made a very elegant fixed wing, single-seat concept for the F-14. Looked like an SU-27 and an F-14 had a love child. The reason was cost, but I wager it'd have been the way to go. The swing-wings, while sexy, were a rapidly aging technology. Take a look at the crazy things a Flanker can do, and tell me superior aerodynamics are in action. Every subsequent iteration of the Tomcat was saddled with the swing-wings, and it's simply not necessary. The stealthy Tomcat would be hampered by them. Their load carrying capacity was limited by them. And the additional weight and complexity of them made for additional maintenance. Am I suggesting the Tomcat isn't a thoroughbred? Hardly. I am suggesting the swing-wings were unnecessary. Trust me when I say the fixed-wing Tomcat was nothing to sneeze at. It would have done everything with two seats the existing one could do. The modern iteration would be something like the F-15EX, with a dash of Su-35 thrown in for good measure. Grumman likely stuck with the swing-wings because of the investment they had made developing them prior to the F-14 program. However, if they had done what Sukhoi did and nailed down the aerodynamics, they would have produced an excellent product. This was the Ironworks, after all, and they knew how to make a Navy jet. Had the GE F110 engines been available at the time, it would have been unbeatable. Similarly, if the Pratt anf Whitney J75 engine been studied, the TF30 could have been let go.
I remember playing microprose F15 strike eagle and many missions would end by landing on an aircraft carrier at the time i did think it was a good idea at the time. Dont get me wrong the Tomcat owns my heart and always will but the Eagle is a beast. Great video, thanks Ed
A naval f-15 would have been slower, with less range than the tomcat. It would have required a redesigned wing to give it better handling at slow speeds. It might have been easier to fly tough.
This wasn’t the first time a land based plane would be adapted for use by the Navy. There was the P51H, a version of the Mustang that was considered for use on aircraft carriers. A Navy version of the F15 is a new one on me…. I wonder, how many Air Force planes were considered for Navy use?
The FJ Fury was basically a navalized F-86. It served the fleet well. It's very rare that this happens though. It's very difficult to take a land based fighter and convert it into a suitable carrier fighter. You basically have to redesign it entirely from scratch.
@@GoSlash27 I think the Brits had a problem when they converted the Spitfire into the Seafire….. But you’re right about the Fury being a good Naval fighter
in procurement , often logic is set aside for any number of reasons. the aim 54 needed a big radar, which needed a big AC --and thats why the tomcat. the tomcat was a quite capable fighter and it could often out turn and burn much smaller fighters . the downside was it took many man hours to keep it AW, and was frightfully expensive to operate. when the aim54 was finally OBE, smaller ac looked to be a less costly solution.
The decision to save relative pennies on the F-14's engines needlessly cost several lives of US Navy fliers. However Iran (pre-revolution) was in the market for a heavy fighter. They evaluated F-15s & F-14s and chose the more costly F-14 IIRC, in their view it was the more agile yet could lift more ordinance.
Hmmm, pity we didn't see them go the other way with an F-14 program shared by the US Air Force. You get the better engines installed at scale, rather than dribbled out and likely an emphasis on Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) in radar upgrade packages. The cost saving between the Eagle and Tomcat are substantial, but factoring in scale I think you'd come close. Having only one High capability fighter would have been a huge benefit for upgrade programs. Scroll forward and we've got people looking for a Strike Eagle in the Tomcat, which we know was doable even on a shoe-string budget.
Ed. Looking at most (all) of the comments it seems you've captured a particularly knowledgeable audience ........well not quite . You lost me at 9 minutes !!!! Thanks Ed.
I like the way the US keeps developing all these hyper expensive new planes. And yet alot of them have already gone and yes they still keep using the old ones from the 70s.
F14 should have been upgraded to super Tomcat 21 variants and beyond. You don’t need too many of them because they are highly advanced multi role interceptors-bombers that will supplement the F18s. With AMRAAMS the F14 would be stowing 12-16 of them easily given her ability to hold space for much air to air munitions. Secondly the extended range of flight combat radius over F18 plus the requirement for the best radars in the naval aviation world meant that the F14 could have been the Navy’s do it all multi mission Gen 4.5++ strike fighter comparable to the EX F15s, which elevates the force multiplier effect.
I think your hypotheticals near the end of the video are GREAT. And they all make significant sense, imo. I have never considered them before. I would like to add that I read in the 1990's that the AIM-54 Phoenix was a bit of a dud. That on one test - six of them were fired at slow, non-maneuvering missile targets at long range. And only one of the AIM-54's hit an 'enemy' missile. Though the Iranian's swear that they were effective. Whatever that is worth. Also, I have to take whatever the Tomcat's designer says about his 'baby' with a huge grain of salt. Too much bias there for my taste. But I am a cynic. I think the Navy just wanted their own aircraft. Plus, a fast 'Phoenix truck'. So...they bought the F-14. Thanks for this video. ☮
I’d like to review the test of the Phoenix. It’s progenitor, the AIM-47 Falcon, pulled off some pretty amazing tests when shot from the YF-12, after all.
@@ronjon7942 I don't recall where I read it - 25+ years ago. But the fact that the Phoenix ended production even though no other air-to-air missile could match it's range? Even though other aircraft could have operated it (with some avionics modifications)? Proves that it could not have been THAT effective. ✌
The F-18 started life as the F-17, an (unadopted) air force aircraft, so it can happen. One wonders if it had been renamed the F-19 if it would have been adopted (or F-17? or F-18?)
The F/A-18A-D Hornets bore the same relation to the YF-17 Cobra as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to the Legacy Hornets: they're shaped more or less the same, but the new aircraft is larger and heavier and has very few parts in common.
@@Philistine47 Yeah, pretty much. No parts in common at all that I can think of. They went with the YF-17 Cobra planform because the shape had already been proven in the wind tunnel and flight, but the actual aircraft had nothing in common except for a passing family resemblance.
@@Philistine47 alright gotta ask the two of you who replied, since this has popped up in my mind, if the super hornet is remotely or not remotely related to the legacy hornet aside from shape, what's the difference between: making new LHornets, making SHornets, and making new LHornets that are bigger with a tweak here or there?
@cobraglatiator The LHornet has been out of production since 2000. That assembly line isn't just cold, it's _gone_ - the buildings have been repurposed, the tooling has been taken away or scrapped, and the entire supply chain of subcontractors that used to make LHornet parts has either moved on to new projects or gone out of business. By contrast, the SHornet is still in active production (for a little longer, at least), so getting more is as "simple" as placing an order for them at Boeing. As for building SHornet-sized LHornets... I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that or why it would be desirable. The SHornet is a little bigger and a _lot_ heavier than the LHornet, and the two don't have many parts in common. But you'd certainly want the SHornet's F414 engines in any such hybrid, since the LHornet's F404s would result in a badly underpowered aircraft; and you'd also want SHornet avionics, since the LHornet avionics are a quarter-century out of date; and the engines and avionics are most of the cost of a new fighter aircraft, so integrating those into a new "hybrid Hornet" airframe would be more expensive than just ordering another production run of SHornets.
@@Philistine47 i feel like you misunderstood my reply, but i admit i skimmed yours, this one, what i meant was: what makes the superhornet a totally different plane, as compared to the other options. not: what's practical and something we might do or feasibly could do for reasonable money. hope i've cleared up any misunderstanding.
Naah, the Eagle has a higher stall speed and adding the comformal tanks and the 54'ers would limit it drastically in range and endurance. You'd have to drop the expensive payload whenever you returned to the ship. That is also why the Tomcat rarely used all 6 Hardpoints for the Phoenix. They would have had to drop 2-4 of them to be able to land safely on the ship. The F-15 would probably need to drop ALL of them. Bigger wings would have made the Eagle slower, but it would be able to land slower and might have been a good Carrier Aircraft.
The additional weight of a heavier interceptor is a liability at slower speeds and at close range with a lighter fighter; one-size-fits-all doctrine has expunged the institutional distinction between interceptors and fighters yet energy-maneuverability for airplanes is immutable.
Both airplanes, the F-14 and F-15 are the greatest jet fighters. I admire more the F-14 because in a way a Tomcat is a sniper. It can detect and fire on a enemy up to 100 miles away. I am sure the F-15 pilot can see the missile coming and evade the missile, but doing so, it's wasting energy to defeat the missile. By the time he is ready to fight, there is a sparrow or the AMRAAM coming up to him. Which will get him or make him waste more energy. In other words, he will be on the defensive position all the time, because at this time the sidewinder will get him or the guns. Beside in a furball fight, it is better 4 eyes then 2. While the F-14 pilot is flying and engaging the enemy, the RIO is looking behind them or any other treats. The F-15 pilot have to do all by himself. The F-15 have better engines and performance is a little better than an F-14, (it does not have to carry the extra weight to be a carrier compatible fighter). But there is the weak point. If the F-15N was realize, the extra weight would cancel out all the close combat advantage. Plus, it won't have the Phoenix missile, the AP-63 radar and still it will be just one pilot. There were discussion to make a F-14F with GE engines and better performance. A more advance digital radar and a radar absorbent paint for a more stealth plane. But the issue is still cost.
I would suspect that by the time they added enough strength to make the F-15 safe to land on a carrier repeatedly it would have lost any advantage over the F-14. Also the higher landing speeds would have probably resulted in higher accident rates. Building the F-14 with the right engines the first time would have been, in hindsight, the best option.
And yet, the F-4 Phantom served the U.S. Navy AND the U.S. Air Force AND the U.S. Marine Corps. I really don't understand why there is all this hate and dubiousness with the idea of a common fighter for all three, especially since *Phantoms were still in service* when the F-111, F-14, and F-15 were being developed. I mean, aside from inten$e lobbying on the part of the military industrial complex wanting to split the pie rather than give it all to the one who was already well placed to get it all, of course.
An interesting 'what if.' I seem to remember that the US Navy wanted the F-18 as cost saving exercise because the F-14 was so expensive. To sweeten the deal they added other capabilities which then pushed the price up to the point where it cost more that the F-14. Makes the F-15N look like a better choice.
The difference in price was not because of the planes true price but because the contractors being Greedy. They falsely claimed it was more because it was for Carrier landings. They used a special purpose as a special vehicle being more expensive. Greed greed
No F-18 would change the export market a _lot_ . Severall nations bought tthe F-18 because they needed a powerful fighter but didn't have the bottomless purse of the USAF: Finland, Spain, Canada, Australia... if this kills the F-18, I wonder what would have happened.
It was never going to happen, the eagle would have angle of approach issues coming aboard ship ! With its short wings it would come in hot! Plus the nose would cause landing visibility issues! The tomcat had a an angle down for landing on a ship! The tomcat wouldn’t have issues if he navy bought the engine they wanted, they chose price over the lives of the crew!
Ah, the crappy engines the F-14As were saddled with severely diminished the 'agility'. The Navy could've had the 'perfect' 14Ds right at the start using the Eagle's engines...don't know the politics surrounding why Grumman had to use the TFs... Until it 'matured' past the F-4 there were many stories from early 'Top Gun' that the Navy's last F-4 model, the S, could match the 14s close in. So, I'm dubious about that claim about 'matching' the F-15s considering the Eagle's engines were far superior to the p.o.s. TFs in the 14s. BVR & medium-range superiority for the 14? Most likely...but at the merge, I'm not so sure.
Wow, they were already thinking about conformal fuel tanks for the 15 right at the start. I had always thought that idea didn't come about until the E. Also on the schematics the Sea-15 did have the dual nose gear and (imo) if it was a single seat, it would not have worked well with the Phoenix.
I’m mildly disappointed they didn’t call the navalised version the F-15 Seagle.
Then Top Gun would have had to star Steven Seagal.
Certainly would have happened if it had been a Royal Navy project...
If they ever fitted bombs, I sure hope they are painted white to complete the whole splattering your Seagle target.
I kinda like Smeagle 😎
IMHO best comment on this video thus far, well done 😂
Ironically the USAF evaluated the F-14 as a possible replacement for the F-106 in the dedicated interceptor role.
Not even the eagle could match the F-14s performance and capability.
@@kdrapertruckerand most importantly service cost...
@@kdrapertrucker but which aircraft is still being built?
Well the previous time the USAF had swallowed its pride and bought an aircraft designed for the Navy, it went rather well...
@@wm9346 one reason is because adjusted for inflation, the F-14 would now cost almost $200 million per jet making it more than the F-22
It isn't a trivial matter to navalize a land- based tactical aircraft (especially a fighter). This is why it's been so rarely successful. It requires not only beefier landing gear, enlarged and folding wings, and a tailhook, but also a stronger airframe and special design attention to saltwater corrosion. Usually by the time you do this, your fighter has lost all or most of its performance due to weight penalties.
In contrast all carrier based aircraft are land compatible out of the gate, which is why you see so many successful land based tactical aircraft that were originally carrier designs.
I suspect that had McDD ever brought the F-15N to fruition, it would've proven both less capable and more expensive than the F-14.
But.. Sea Eagle would have been shortened to Seagull, natures aggressive air jerk 🍻
Also - the F-15 carrier approach speed would have been a lot higher
@@someoldguyinhawaii4960 that got me thinking, what if the STOL extra wings were added to the f-15n?
@@BoycottChinaa tbf, an Eagle is just Seagull on roids.
and you are exactly right, you need only look at the YF-17, modifying that design into the F/A-18 cost it dearly when it came to operational capabilities, the YF-17 was truly an impressive machine, a real fighter plane, the ONLY reason why the YF-16 was chosen over it was the extra cost of the YF-17 due to it's 2 engines over the single engine of the YF-16, which the Air Force already owned the engines, which is why the original F-16's were so cheap, BUT modifying the YF-17 airframe, into the F/A-18 used the same F-404 engines as the YF-17, but the F/A-18 ended up being 9,000 pounds heavier, due to the wings being redesigned, to be come "MULTI MISSION" wing pylons were added to provide for air to ground weapons, something that the YF-16 or the YF-17 were NEVER designed for, the performance of the F/A-18, is abysmal compared to that of the YF-17, it was a REALLY terrible idea, and it would have affected the F-15 even worse.
I was at an airshow in the Midwest in 1987, saw an F-14 on the tarmac, pilot taking questions. He answered one to the effect "Only one aircraft in the world can beat us". I blurted out "F-15"... he just smiled knowingly. Yep, thought so.
Here's an idea for a topic: The Convair Model 200 VTOL fighter concept.
That would be a neat video to watch!
You know, i actually remember seeing a photo of some declassified early blueprints for the F-14, and apparently the Grumman design team apparently started out by using fixed wings, the tomcat pretty much looked like an F-15 with a longer neck
If the F-15N-PHX were to really weigh 9000lbs more than the standard F-15A, it would mean that the F-15N-PHX would've weighed almost the same as the F-14A.
Had it been fitted with the PW F100-PW100 like the standard F-15A, it would have had the same thrust-to-weight ratio as the F-14A.
In which case, in a F-14A vs F-15N-PHX BFM dogfight, my money's on the F-14A, given the same T/W ratio, but superior wing loading. (As long as the TF30 didn't flame out that is)
Exactly - and low-speed carrier landing and handling characteristics would have been ABYSMAL.
@@EstorilEmWhat if they put those camards on the F15N that were used for short landing studies with a specially modified F15?
@@joemaloney1019 oooo, that was a should-have-been version of the Eagle. I’m guessing there’s something to Growling Sidewinder using this AFTI Eagle to consistently kill a Raptor, within DCS. Also, too, with Grim Reapers.
9000 pounds does not sound right...considering the F15 weighed 28,000 empty, I highly doubt some structural strengthening, tail hook, new gear, and folding wing tip mechanisms would add an extra 30% of the total weight of the stock aircraft....As far as landing speeds, I'm seeing both the F15 and F14 have a 125 knot optimal landing speed. The F15 body has a lot of lifting body elements to it.
@@johnnycab8986 The chart shown in the video showed 4,000 lbs difference with everything else the same.
About the F-111B, Grumman was already the subcontractor to General Dynamics, an d was in charge of the F-111B project. I do think that their experience with the F-111B was what gave inspiration to the F-14 Tomcat.
The swing wing component of the aardvark was the heart of the Tomcat.
They designed the bird around it.
Just like the warthog 2 was designed around the gun.
Grumman had some experience with swing wing tech.The XF10F Jaguar and the F111B. Im sure lessons learned helped out with the Tomcat
They got rid of the f111 side-by-side seating and the escape pod for a much thinner cross section for huge performance benefits.
The reason for the swing wing was for carrier landing speeds when the fighter had to carry the Phoenix missile. For a fighter to carry the missiles and fuel and still be able to land on a carrier they had to get the landing speed down.
General Dynamics and Grumman shared information on the swing wing F-111 technology. Ed Nash stated that the $400 mil. in development for the F-111B was used for the Tomcat in the form of the AWG-9 and the TF-30 engines. But GD also worked with Grumman on wind tunnel design as well as the structure and other design features that would help Grumman build a successful alternative to the F-111B. GD had already won the F-111 contract with the USAF so there were no sour grapes on their part. It's not like they were forced to hand over technology to a rival company after losing a bid. A decade later GD would come up with the F-16 and the rest is history!
Most of the cost involved the swing-wing design and its extremely expensive titanium electron-beam-welded carry-through wing box structure.
I wish more people talked about this, as it’s kinda it’s own marvel of engineering - especially for the time.
Anyways, that swing-wing is the key here. It’s why the Tomcat was so much more expensive, but also why it was so flexible. I HIGHLY doubt that the “sea eagle” would have had even acceptable low-speed handling performance for the USN, the F-14 was just incredible in that regard. You just don’t get a big Mach 2.3+ two-seat strike aircraft to land at 130mph, that was (and is) just amazing - PLUS it would still out-turn an F-15 at certain speeds (a good tomcat pilot would know / use these min. radius turn figures.) It really was an amazing machine, and I highly recommend everyone watch the Peninsula Srs. video mentioned in the comments. FWIW that channel has many other fascinating lectures and interviews as well, from the space shuttle to the SR-71. 👍
A guy in my radar unit worked at Raytheon.
Agreed. And agree w your recommendation for the Peninsula Srs channel. The aerospace content from the engineers, technicians, pilots, and historians is amazing and undersold.
This was fantastic. I'm a lover of BOTH of these aircraft. I miss the Tomcat.
What's with the snide against the Su-27? I think it is the most beautiful of all modern fighter jets and the way they managed to decrease the wing loading without increasing drag by making the body create lift and act as a 3rd wing is quite ingenious, kind of a "eat your cake and still have it"-thing, as anyone who knows something about aircraft design and the necessary trade-offs and compromises made between maneuverability/wing loading and speed/low drag knows and should be able to appreciate. That is quite a feat, from an engineering perspective.
Add to that the enormous internal fuel capacity making external drop tanks optional instead of mandatory and that despite being more maneuverable, it still has a decent max speed and it is a very impressive machine, at least in theory.
It might be let down by the avionics, radar and the training levels of the pilots flying it, or the commanding officers deciding how it is flown and when, but it arguably is the better aircraft, compared to the comparably simple "modern boom and zoom fighter with a big radar"-design of the F-15.
And no, I'm not a Russian troll or military fanboy. I am a interested outsider from a country that neither operates F-15, nor any variant of the Su and have no personal, nationalistic dog in that game.
Subjectively, as a "aircraft porn pervert", I like both. The F-14, not so much to be honest. It always looked too bulky to me and kind of lazy in its design. It looks like something a amateur using a 3d modeling software to design his own fighter aircraft would come up with. Just 2 engines with a cockpit and all the other stuff a fighter needs slapped on to it in kind of a slapdash "good enough to work" matter. It is nowhere near as elegant as a Su-27, which looks like a mix between a eagle, a crane and a shark.
I think without the original Top Gun movie, only a small niche minority among military aircraft fans would count it as one of their favorites.
In that regard it kind of is like the "Paris Hilton" of fighter jets. People find her sexy because the media told them so but nobody really can explain why they ride the bandwagon of finding her hot.
Yeah, Paris Hilton is a 20 year late, dated reference, but I don't know enough about modern "sex symbols" to make the comparison with a more up to date example, hehe.
Wow! Who allowed "Ivan" on this line? The only people that think any Sukhoi jets are "Beautiful" would also think Klingon females are beautiful. It's pretty clear that the designers at the Sukhoi bureau were fans of the Tomcat. Look at the large cockpit and canopy area of the two seat Flanker. The large widely spaced wedge intakes and the tall twin vertical stabs over the twin engines. Except for the complicated swing wing we can tell who they were trying to improve upon. Certainly not an improved version of any Soviet design, but an American design. The Tomcat has the engines spaced apart to create an aero-tunnel and its perfect for reducing drag when you're carrying weapons - particularly large Phoenix missiles and 2,000 lbs. JDAMS. She's a big girl, I'll give you that but she's got it where it counts. You may like the Flanker more and I'll support your right to bad taste, but if the Russkies were so smart, why are they always behind the U.S. when it comes to design innovation?
Dosvidanya, tavarisch! 🕌
@@edselreynoso3438 I'm German, not even East-German. Just so you can at least use the right dumb nationalistic insults.
I suppose you can't argue over aesthetics, but the Su-27 is objectively elegant and beautiful and to say otherwise is just silly.
"Aero tunnels" do not reduce drag. There are reasons for why people designing aircraft almost always try to avoid aircraft having too much surface area, which is why you usually try to put the engines near the main body of the aircraft.
The Su-27 is a exception because as I said, they designed the body as sort of a 3rd wing, so it would create additional lift and reduce the wing loading on the actual wings.
For that they had to put the engines outside of the main body, so to say.
I don't particularly like Russians either and Russian military nerds were among the most obnoxious people you could run into online, in my opinion (only topped by British military nerds trying to tell you that the rifled gun on the Challenger 2 tank supposedly was superior to the smooth bore guns on other MBTs), but this is a historical fact anyone who knows something about military aircraft design is aware of.
So there goes your silly idea of the Su-27 being a ripoff of the F-14.
Outside of them needing a place to put the Phoenix missiles, there is no aerodynamic reason for the "aero tunnel" on the F-14.
Agreed wayy better looking than the box shaped Eagle. I prefer the Su-30's. If given the choice I would absolutely rather fly a Flanker lmao.
Thanks for your response. I was a little more juvenile than usual with my initial response. I have a very strong bias since I retired from the USAF years ago. I remember having these arguments with my high school friends back in the '80s about which fighter could beat the other (F-14, F-15, and F-16) as if we really knew from first hand experience one way or the other. How silly it all is. You articulated your case very well and have made me reconsider the Flanker in technical aerodynamic terms. I too think, in a weird way, the Flanker has some nice lines for being such a big girl. I even have a couple of models of her in my stash waiting to be built up. They are impressive and formidable birds. I'm glad I could contribute to the conversation by seeing who has conviction to back up their opinions. well done mate.
@@edselreynoso3438 You are obviously blinded by national bias. The only actually ugly aircraft the Russians built after WW2 is the Mi-28 attack helicopter, because they wante to beat the AH-64 Apache in ugliness. All of their jet fighter and bomber designs look better than their American counterparts. The F-15 by the way looks almost like a 1:1 copy of the MiG-25 with its huge, boxy air intakes (both great-looking planes, btw.) and the Su-27 maybe inspired by the F-15 but its lines are way more elegant. The Su-27 and the MiG-29 series are objectively beautiful aircraft.
RE: the lecture by the F-14 designer at 3:05. Any airplane can "take" another in the right circumstances. However under most circumstances the F-15 had superior maneuverability. This is only natural, as the F-14 was handicapped by the weight and wing needed for the fleet defense role the F-15 did not have to perform.
There are accounts online of many mock dogfights between the two with the 14 taking the edge. The cat could be flown in a dangerous and aggressive manner that let it out rate fight anything in the air.
@@30AndHatingIt You should read more carefully. No one ever said an F-14 could never beat an F-15, only that the F-15 is overall the more maneuverable aircraft. As it should be, having been optimized for that attribute, while the F-14 had to meet more varied requirements. They don’t call them the laws of physics for no reason.
BTW, there are all sorts of accounts online about everything, including visits by flying saucers. There is actually a web page by an experienced F-14 pilot who claims the airplane was not really that good at dogfighting because it wasn’t designed for that. He’s wrong, of course, but that extreme example illustrates the validity of internet accounts. My statement was based on face-to-face discussions with multiple F-14 and F-15 pilots about dogfighting in these aircraft. But F-14 fanboys will remain fanboys.
@@gort8203 This argument is rooted an an oversimplification of the term 'maneuverability'. The F-14 was the best 'rate' fighter in existence, while the F-15 was the best 'energy' fighter. Any F-15 (or any other fighter) driver foolish enough to allow himself to get sucked into a turning engagement against an F-14 at 340 kts and below would lose to the Tomcat guaranteed. Any fighter on the planet engaging an F-15 at 420 kts or above would lose to the Eagle guaranteed.
The F-14 could and often did beat the F-15 in 1v1 engagements, mainly due to F-15 pilots attempting to turn with them... but overall the F-15 was the better overall air superiority fighter and would come out on top *so long as* it didn't fight by the F-14's rules.
@@GoSlash27 No, this argument is rooted in an unwillingness to accept the consensus of reality, and a desire to twist the argument into one you can win. You can argue all the ifs ands or buts you want all day long. The truth is that the F-15 has superior overall maneuverability to the F-14, as it should considering what these aircraft were designed to do. You must not think that USAF would have specified a heavier aircraft with a VG wing on the same thrust if it would have given the F-15 more maneuverability. They looked at that for the F-15 and discarded it because it was inferior. End of story for those of us who accept reality, but you seem to think Grumman worked magic that overcame the laws of physics. Have a nice day.
@@gort8203 Uhh... I never came here looking to 'win' anything, so you might want to check your mirror. ;) I'm just stating the facts. Had you actually taken the time to read my comment instead of furiously assaulting your keyboard, you would've realized that everything I said actually agreed with you. Have a nice day :)
...another great vid. I'm glad that this channel is getting the views that it deserves- personally, I look forward to each post, as I'm a fan of aviation in general, and the uncommon aircraft that are rarely covered, in particular)
Cheers!
Ed, the Fokker S-14, one of the world's first (if not THE first) dedicated jet training aircraft, and yet largely forgotten by everyone. This would be interesting.
The T-33 was the pioneering jet trainer of the world. Once again, American.
9:37 Senator Eagleton represented Missouri, home to McDonnell Douglas
Thanks, Ed. Never knew about the F-15N! But even if it had come to pass I have a feeling the F-15N would have met the same fate as the F-14 (for the same reasons), and would have been replaced by the F-18 anyways.
that is pretty much what i thought. two different questions may lead to the same answer.
How much difference between load carrying? Keep F-15 more for strike and bombing?
The F-15 is incredibly expensive to run.
It was the cost of maintenance that did the F-14 in. The F-15 costs far less to look after than the Tomcat ever did. A naval version would be little different in that regard.
Only reason the F-14 was retired is because Dick Cheney didn't get a pay off from Grumman. The super Tomcat 21 would have been a far superior aircraft to the super Hornet. And the super Tomcat 22 would have been he ultimate naval stealth fighter.
Given the heavy weight of the AIM-54 Phoenixes, the F-15N Sea Eagle would have been more suited as a naval dogfighter with its AIM-9 Sidewinders, AIM-7 Sparrows, and AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Still, it would have been interesting to imagine an alternate timeline in which the Sea Eagle and Tomcat are flying alongside together for the United States Navy.
For some time it was consdered to give the F-16 'sea-legs' too...!
In the 1980, when the Navy was looking for a replacement for their ageing 'Buckeyes' France and Germany proposed a navalized version of the Alpha-Jet...
With 2 engines it would be saver over sea...
But it wasn't th happen... 🙁
The winner was the BEA Hawk, that became the T-45...! 😢
P.S.
Would be nice to have a serie about (good) planes, that didn't make it, like the mentioned F-15N Sea-Eagle, the double-seated A-10 'Night-Warthog' or the YF-12 'Blackbird-Fighter'...
Also, I disagree with the idea that the F-15N would've still been in service today had it been selected. The Legacy Hornet, developed a full decade *after* the F-15, is now retired. Carrier operation is a lot more punishing to airframes than land based operation and they eventually wear out.
The USAF are buying a new version of the F-15, the EX model. It will have many upgrades over the F-15E Strike Eagle.
@@DIREWOLFx75 I agree with most of this, but would definitely disagree with the statement that the F-15 was 'sturdier' than the F-18.
@@DIREWOLFx75 I don't see how it could possibly take more abuse since it wasn't built to withstand severe punishment while the Hornet was. For sure no F-15 has ever been subjected to the violent impacts and structural shocks that the F-18 was subjected to daily over decades of service.
Whoever told you this... I have no idea how they could even begin to compare the 'durability' of the two airframes, let alone draw such a conclusion. I don't even know how they'd be in a position to compare the two since they never operated together.
@@DIREWOLFx75 Having worked phase dock in the late 80's, the A's and B's would have needed a lot of work to survive one carrier landing. By the 1200 hrs the landing gear were prone to cracking, the mounting structure was usually stretched, the nose longerons were often cracked, and the wing leading edges where starting to peel off. The F18's that I saw appeared to have much more structure around the landing gear fo a much smaller acft.
@@kaionski1105 Yeah, that kinda goes without saying. No F-15 would have ever survived even a single carrier launch or landing in stock form let alone decades of them. The spindly little landing gear would've snapped like twigs. But the airframe itself.... Could *it* have survived the stresses of carrier ops with all the necessary landing gear, tailhook, etc without heavy modification? I highly doubt it, since it wasn't designed or built to handle that sort of abuse.
Hopefully, the US Navy's reliance on F18s / F35s for fleet air defence works out against peer to near peer adversaries.
One thing that is seldom mentioned is, by the time the F-15's frame is strengthened for carrier operations, change some materials to fight off the corrosive effects of saltwater exposure, the weight gain of the F-15N offset any projected advantages the F-15A had over the F-14A. The F-14D's performance came close to matching the F-15C when the F-14Ds received the new GE F-110 engines. NOW, the F-14As ability to take-off from the carrier, goes several hundred miles, time of patrol station to intercept the Tu-95s with anti-ship missiles, the F-14 would still be better interceptor.
This and the Vought V-1600 are some of the goofiest proposals that probably would've worked somewhat decently.
Speaking of, any plans to do a video on the V-1600 and possibly F/A-18L?
ADCOM Tomcat too
Lmfao yeah just like the F-4 didn't work 😂
I was a little kid when the F-15 came out. Man did that start a lot of fights. Which one was better.
The F15 Sea Eagle would get renamed to the "Seagull" so quickly by the troops.
We already call them "Beagles" by guys working non-F-15 airframes! 😂
@@edselreynoso3438 Why Beagles my dude?
Its a pejorative term to show contempt for "the other guys" . Pride in the airframe you're working (F-16, A-10, F-35, etc). Sounds like Eagle.
The Sea Eagle finally gets mentioned at 5:48.
Brilliant video. What about the 'Sea Horse', the navalized project for the P51 Mustang.?
I'm a big F14 fan but the initial engines were so underpowered they were dangerous. The aircraft was designed in conjunction with to carry the AIM54 Phoenix AA missile which had a huge range and glided to it's target. The use of the AIM 54 goes against normal fighter doctrine to fly high and shoot down, when it became public that if they were going to use that weapon they would go low and fire upwards to avoid heat sources was incredible. It was then that the problem of identifying your target over that range made that weapon impossible to use. The F14 had a brilliant gun cam but it couldn't see 120 miles. There were also so many service issues as it was a complicated aircraft that eventually the F18 and the super took over it;s roll especially as both amraam & sidewinder missiles had huge range increases.
Could the undefeated champion of the skies have got it's feet wet? I would say yes but I guess we will never know. Great video Ed.
Thanks.
Looks like i am a day late here....Thanks Ed Nash.....
Shoe🇺🇸
Thanks Ed.
I has to pause the video because I was laughing so hard when you said "Sea Pig"
The MiG 29 Fulcrum, you forgot about!!!!
With adjustment for inflation the purchase price of the F-14 was over $250,000,000.
How close are F15 C and Flankers conceptually?
Its more about the pilot. I once watched an ANG F-4 phantom kick the crap out of a Navy F-14 in what could best be described as a "guns only dogfight challenge". The old F-4 got behind the F-14 and there was nothing the F-14 could do.
As always a great amazing very interesting video about an aircraft I knew nothing about Mr.Ed.Not that I do not like the videos about the canvas and wicket two storey biplanes but something with a bit of electric circuitry is welcome indeed. Can you make some videos about the C130 A400M or the soviet four engined turbo prop transport planes? Have a good one and I find the fact that the F14 had the nose camera capable of identifying targets 40kilometers away mind blowing.
it would have given the naval air wing some serious legs if it had remained in service into the modern day. The newer F-15 variants have massive fuel capacity and flight time.
Was the F-15N considered as alternative when the Navy began to develop the F-18?
The failure of the F-111B has become a mythical narrative on the internet. The reality is that the Navy changed its mind about the roles its next fighter needed to perform. The lessons of the TFX program are commonly misinterpreted, but if you repeat a narrative for decades it becomes "truth". The idea that one basic airframe could fulfill two different roles was not a dumb idea at all. History is full of examples of aircraft that were versatile enough to fly for different services and even perform different missions. The original requirements presented by the Navy and USAF were not incompatible, but the requirements changed.
Initially the TFX program was reasonable because USAF and USN were both asking for a large aircraft that could lift a heavy load of fuel and weapons, with long range or long loiter, plus high-speed dash or intercept. Twin engines and an innovative variable geometry wing were called for, and DOD logically assessed that it would be wasteful to develop two very expensive advanced airframes when a single one with some variations could do both jobs.
The reason one basic airframe could do both jobs was because the original USN specification was for a fleet defense fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It was not originally intended to be what later became the F-14, but to perform the role meant for the Douglas F6D Missileer, with the addition of supersonic dash capability. I was never meant to be a dogfighter.
The biggest difference between the airframe requirements of the two services was that USAF wanted a tandem cockpit and USN want side by side seating. Boeing tried to make both services happy, but MacNamara’s DOD thought USAF could suck it up and have the crew sit side by side. This is ironic considering that when the Navy cancelled its version USAF was stuck with the cockpit it didn’t want, which also ironically contributed to the airplane being too ungainly for a dogfighter. But if the Navy had expected the F-111 to be a dogfighter it would not have insisted on the side-by-side cockpit over the objection of the Air Force. The F-111 cockpit was suitable for a radar interceptor, but not for an air superiority fighter.
The original idea wasn’t dumb -- what happened was that needs changed. USN revised its needs as result of combat experience in Vietnam, and realized they also needed an air superiority fighter to replace the F-8 and F-4, but couldn’t afford that in addition to a dedicated fleet defense aircraft. Thus, the TFX would now have to be able to dogfight as well as be a missile interceptor. The F-111B could have worked as a missileer, but it was too fat and underpowered to compete as an air superiority fighter. It was proper of the Navy to recognize that its needs had evolved. This was perhaps the beginning of the Navy realizing that budgets and hangar decks did not have room for so many specialized aircraft. USAF desperately needed the F-111 to replace the F-105, so they sucked it up and accepted the heavy airframe caused by the loveseat cockpit they never wanted.
Fascinating! 🤔
while the F-15N concept made sense, i wouldnt see the Navy buying an Air Force design (althought vice versa it was sometimes the case, just look at the F-4, A-7 and the A-3/EB-66 among others, although these were exceptional cases).
I usually think converting a land based aircraft to CV capable as a mistake. But as the F-15 was a McD-Douglas creation it bears consideration.
Ed would you be able to cover the DAR-10?
Its a Bulgarian WW2 Light bomber, but due to lack of ablity and mitivation i couldn't find much info other than that on Wikipedia.
I'll certainly have a dig about 😁
Thanks! Means a lot.!
Great video 👍
Anytime baby!
The F-15N Sea Eagle, or Seagull for short...
Was some of that tomcat footage from The Final Countdown?
Grumman made a very elegant fixed wing, single-seat concept for the F-14. Looked like an SU-27 and an F-14 had a love child. The reason was cost, but I wager it'd have been the way to go. The swing-wings, while sexy, were a rapidly aging technology. Take a look at the crazy things a Flanker can do, and tell me superior aerodynamics are in action. Every subsequent iteration of the Tomcat was saddled with the swing-wings, and it's simply not necessary. The stealthy Tomcat would be hampered by them. Their load carrying capacity was limited by them. And the additional weight and complexity of them made for additional maintenance.
Am I suggesting the Tomcat isn't a thoroughbred? Hardly. I am suggesting the swing-wings were unnecessary. Trust me when I say the fixed-wing Tomcat was nothing to sneeze at. It would have done everything with two seats the existing one could do. The modern iteration would be something like the F-15EX, with a dash of Su-35 thrown in for good measure.
Grumman likely stuck with the swing-wings because of the investment they had made developing them prior to the F-14 program. However, if they had done what Sukhoi did and nailed down the aerodynamics, they would have produced an excellent product. This was the Ironworks, after all, and they knew how to make a Navy jet. Had the GE F110 engines been available at the time, it would have been unbeatable. Similarly, if the Pratt anf Whitney J75 engine been studied, the TF30 could have been let go.
I remember playing microprose F15 strike eagle and many missions would end by landing on an aircraft carrier at the time i did think it was a good idea at the time. Dont get me wrong the Tomcat owns my heart and always will but the Eagle is a beast. Great video, thanks Ed
A naval f-15 would have been slower, with less range than the tomcat. It would have required a redesigned wing to give it better handling at slow speeds. It might have been easier to fly tough.
This wasn’t the first time a land based plane would be adapted for use by the Navy.
There was the P51H, a version of the Mustang that was considered for use on aircraft carriers.
A Navy version of the F15 is a new one on me….
I wonder, how many Air Force planes were considered for Navy use?
It wasn't bad performance, but difficult handling at landing and takeoff why there wasn't a Sea-'Mustang' ☹
The FJ Fury was basically a navalized F-86. It served the fleet well. It's very rare that this happens though. It's very difficult to take a land based fighter and convert it into a suitable carrier fighter. You basically have to redesign it entirely from scratch.
@@GoSlash27
I think the Brits had a problem when they converted the Spitfire into the Seafire…..
But you’re right about the Fury being a good Naval fighter
@@GoSlash27 The F-86 was originally based on the FJ-1 Fury. After adding the swept wing, the F-86 became the basis for the later FJs.
Excellent.
Funny thing is that the navy put out its best in top gun but the air force used f16s in Iron eagle kinda of strange but nothing good is out but these
I personally think, that your speculations are very correct.
But it was not to happen.
"Sea Eagle?" Seagull? I can hear it now. 😅
Wait what a Navy F-15?!
The F-15 Seagull
regarding F-14 prpganda you forogt The Final Countdown film with Kirk Douglas
interesting idea.
in procurement , often logic is set aside for any number of reasons. the aim 54 needed a big radar, which needed a big AC --and thats why the tomcat. the tomcat was a quite capable fighter and it could often out turn and burn much smaller fighters . the downside was it took many man hours to keep it AW, and was frightfully expensive to operate. when the aim54 was finally OBE, smaller ac looked to be a less costly solution.
The decision to save relative pennies on the F-14's engines needlessly cost several lives of US Navy fliers.
However
Iran (pre-revolution) was in the market for a heavy fighter. They evaluated F-15s & F-14s and chose the more costly F-14
IIRC, in their view it was the more agile yet could lift more ordinance.
excellent!
What happened to all the AIM-54s?
Hmmm, pity we didn't see them go the other way with an F-14 program shared by the US Air Force. You get the better engines installed at scale, rather than dribbled out and likely an emphasis on Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) in radar upgrade packages.
The cost saving between the Eagle and Tomcat are substantial, but factoring in scale I think you'd come close. Having only one High capability fighter would have been a huge benefit for upgrade programs.
Scroll forward and we've got people looking for a Strike Eagle in the Tomcat, which we know was doable even on a shoe-string budget.
Ed. Looking at most (all) of the comments it seems you've captured a particularly knowledgeable audience ........well not quite . You lost me at 9 minutes !!!! Thanks Ed.
I like the way the US keeps developing all these hyper expensive new planes. And yet alot of them have already gone and yes they still keep using the old ones from the 70s.
What fighter jets does the USN and USAF use from the 1970s? 😂😅
@@EstorilEm ummm, well, there’s this one called the F-15….
F14 should have been upgraded to super Tomcat 21 variants and beyond. You don’t need too many of them because they are highly advanced multi role interceptors-bombers that will supplement the F18s.
With AMRAAMS the F14 would be stowing 12-16 of them easily given her ability to hold space for much air to air munitions.
Secondly the extended range of flight combat radius over F18 plus the requirement for the best radars in the naval aviation world meant that the F14 could have been the Navy’s do it all multi mission Gen 4.5++ strike fighter comparable to the EX F15s, which elevates the force multiplier effect.
If the f-15 is the Sea Eagle then the f-35 is the Sea Hag
TY 🙏🙏
I think your hypotheticals near the end of the video are GREAT.
And they all make significant sense, imo.
I have never considered them before.
I would like to add that I read in the 1990's that the AIM-54 Phoenix was a bit of a dud.
That on one test - six of them were fired at slow, non-maneuvering missile targets at long range.
And only one of the AIM-54's hit an 'enemy' missile.
Though the Iranian's swear that they were effective.
Whatever that is worth.
Also, I have to take whatever the Tomcat's designer says about his 'baby' with a huge grain of salt.
Too much bias there for my taste.
But I am a cynic.
I think the Navy just wanted their own aircraft.
Plus, a fast 'Phoenix truck'.
So...they bought the F-14.
Thanks for this video.
☮
I’d like to review the test of the Phoenix. It’s progenitor, the AIM-47 Falcon, pulled off some pretty amazing tests when shot from the YF-12, after all.
@@ronjon7942 I don't recall where I read it - 25+ years ago. But the fact that the Phoenix ended production even though no other air-to-air missile could match it's range? Even though other aircraft could have operated it (with some avionics modifications)? Proves that it could not have been THAT effective.
✌
This is interesting.
Say it fast enought you get Seagull
Lol yep. The amount of times I had to rerecord 'sea eagle' was annoying 😁
Just don't let them fly over the bay.
Na na na na na🎶
Na na na na🎶
Take my breath away…🎶
The reason that the F-14 isn't still in service like the F-15 is that Dick Cheney had a seemingly pathological hatred of Grumman.
The plane the USN really ought to have angled for is the F-16
This was well before F16 came to life and Navy avoided single engine jets then and the F16 was possbly unable to carry the fat AIM54.
There was a naval F-16 proposal. Went nowhere. The Falcon did eventually see limited Naval service as an aggressor trainer, replacing F-5Es.
Jump to 05:50 to watch the actual info from the title.
We could had the F-15E naval for vastly cheaper
I read that as "...Edna Shio".
Sorry Ed.
The F-18 started life as the F-17, an (unadopted) air force aircraft, so it can happen. One wonders if it had been renamed the F-19 if it would have been adopted (or F-17? or F-18?)
The F/A-18A-D Hornets bore the same relation to the YF-17 Cobra as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to the Legacy Hornets: they're shaped more or less the same, but the new aircraft is larger and heavier and has very few parts in common.
@@Philistine47 Yeah, pretty much. No parts in common at all that I can think of. They went with the YF-17 Cobra planform because the shape had already been proven in the wind tunnel and flight, but the actual aircraft had nothing in common except for a passing family resemblance.
@@Philistine47 alright gotta ask the two of you who replied, since this has popped up in my mind, if the super hornet is remotely or not remotely related to the legacy hornet aside from shape, what's the difference between: making new LHornets, making SHornets, and making new LHornets that are bigger with a tweak here or there?
@cobraglatiator The LHornet has been out of production since 2000. That assembly line isn't just cold, it's _gone_ - the buildings have been repurposed, the tooling has been taken away or scrapped, and the entire supply chain of subcontractors that used to make LHornet parts has either moved on to new projects or gone out of business. By contrast, the SHornet is still in active production (for a little longer, at least), so getting more is as "simple" as placing an order for them at Boeing.
As for building SHornet-sized LHornets... I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that or why it would be desirable. The SHornet is a little bigger and a _lot_ heavier than the LHornet, and the two don't have many parts in common. But you'd certainly want the SHornet's F414 engines in any such hybrid, since the LHornet's F404s would result in a badly underpowered aircraft; and you'd also want SHornet avionics, since the LHornet avionics are a quarter-century out of date; and the engines and avionics are most of the cost of a new fighter aircraft, so integrating those into a new "hybrid Hornet" airframe would be more expensive than just ordering another production run of SHornets.
@@Philistine47 i feel like you misunderstood my reply, but i admit i skimmed yours, this one,
what i meant was: what makes the superhornet a totally different plane, as compared to the other options.
not: what's practical and something we might do or feasibly could do for reasonable money.
hope i've cleared up any misunderstanding.
Naah, the Eagle has a higher stall speed and adding the comformal tanks and the 54'ers would limit it drastically in range and endurance. You'd have to drop the expensive payload whenever you returned to the ship. That is also why the Tomcat rarely used all 6 Hardpoints for the Phoenix. They would have had to drop 2-4 of them to be able to land safely on the ship. The F-15 would probably need to drop ALL of them. Bigger wings would have made the Eagle slower, but it would be able to land slower and might have been a good Carrier Aircraft.
The additional weight of a heavier interceptor is a liability at slower speeds and at close range with a lighter fighter; one-size-fits-all doctrine has expunged the institutional distinction between interceptors and fighters yet energy-maneuverability for airplanes is immutable.
Both airplanes, the F-14 and F-15 are the greatest jet fighters. I admire more the F-14 because in a way a Tomcat is a sniper. It can detect and fire on a enemy up to 100 miles away. I am sure the F-15 pilot can see the missile coming and evade the missile, but doing so, it's wasting energy to defeat the missile. By the time he is ready to fight, there is a sparrow or the AMRAAM coming up to him. Which will get him or make him waste more energy. In other words, he will be on the defensive position all the time, because at this time the sidewinder will get him or the guns.
Beside in a furball fight, it is better 4 eyes then 2. While the F-14 pilot is flying and engaging the enemy, the RIO is looking behind them or any other treats. The F-15 pilot have to do all by himself. The F-15 have better engines and performance is a little better than an F-14, (it does not have to carry the extra weight to be a carrier compatible fighter). But there is the weak point. If the F-15N was realize, the extra weight would cancel out all the close combat advantage. Plus, it won't have the Phoenix missile, the AP-63 radar and still it will be just one pilot.
There were discussion to make a F-14F with GE engines and better performance. A more advance digital radar and a radar absorbent paint for a more stealth plane. But the issue is still cost.
I would suspect that by the time they added enough strength to make the F-15 safe to land on a carrier repeatedly it would have lost any advantage over the F-14. Also the higher landing speeds would have probably resulted in higher accident rates.
Building the F-14 with the right engines the first time would have been, in hindsight, the best option.
Call it the F15 Seagull
So basically the Seagull
Nice
And yet, the F-4 Phantom served the U.S. Navy AND the U.S. Air Force AND the U.S. Marine Corps. I really don't understand why there is all this hate and dubiousness with the idea of a common fighter for all three, especially since *Phantoms were still in service* when the F-111, F-14, and F-15 were being developed.
I mean, aside from inten$e lobbying on the part of the military industrial complex wanting to split the pie rather than give it all to the one who was already well placed to get it all, of course.
Can you do a video on the long range kamikaze drones being supplied by uk to Ukraine
They should have taken that
It’s America’s Mig 21
They navy hated the f14. F14 was always broken unlike any other 4th gen jet
An interesting 'what if.'
I seem to remember that the US Navy wanted the F-18 as cost saving exercise because the F-14 was so expensive. To sweeten the deal they added other capabilities which then pushed the price up to the point where it cost more that the F-14. Makes the F-15N look like a better choice.
The difference in price was not because of the planes true price but because the contractors being Greedy. They falsely claimed it was more because it was for Carrier landings. They used a special purpose as a special vehicle being more expensive. Greed greed
Tomcats !
then it won't be eagle and it would have to be called sea gull or osprey or any bird that fishes you know
No F-18 would change the export market a _lot_ . Severall nations bought tthe F-18 because they needed a powerful fighter but didn't have the bottomless purse of the USAF: Finland, Spain, Canada, Australia... if this kills the F-18, I wonder what would have happened.
... powerful* ... Australia*
@@einundsiebenziger5488 that's what happens when one writes in a non-english based PC...
F-14 and F/A18: "We have Top Gun". F-15: "Oh yeah - 108-0!" F-16: [Embarrassed about Iron Eagle movies.] "I'll show you all - I'm going to Ukraine!"
It was never going to happen, the eagle would have angle of approach issues coming aboard ship ! With its short wings it would come in hot! Plus the nose would cause landing visibility issues! The tomcat had a an angle down for landing on a ship! The tomcat wouldn’t have issues if he navy bought the engine they wanted, they chose price over the lives of the crew!
after a minute and a half, I decided NOT to allow you to explain, as I had already saw my bullstuff detector go off twice.
F-15 was messed with since 1953. An answer to the mig 25.
Funny how the F-15 is still flying and the F-14 is in the boneyard. The Navy now has the one aircraft in the F-18 Super Hornet
F35 as well.
Ah, the crappy engines the F-14As were saddled with severely diminished the 'agility'.
The Navy could've had the 'perfect' 14Ds right at the start using the Eagle's engines...don't know the politics surrounding why Grumman had to use the TFs...
Until it 'matured' past the F-4 there were many stories from early 'Top Gun' that the Navy's last F-4 model, the S, could match the 14s close in. So, I'm dubious about that claim about 'matching' the F-15s considering the Eagle's engines were far superior to the p.o.s. TFs in the 14s.
BVR & medium-range superiority for the 14? Most likely...but at the merge, I'm not so sure.
Wow, they were already thinking about conformal fuel tanks for the 15 right at the start. I had always thought that idea didn't come about until the E. Also on the schematics the Sea-15 did have the dual nose gear and (imo) if it was a single seat, it would not have worked well with the Phoenix.