WT Forums

Hear me out.

The Defense people tried to push the F-16, an Air Force plane, on the Navy. It was too fragile for carriers so the F-17, the alternative to the F-16, was made into the F/A-18 and used.

Then with the F/A-22, an Air Force plane, there was talk about making a Naval version but it was deemed too cost prohibitive.

Pardon my french but ain't this @ss backwards? Make a plane for the Navy and if it can catapult off a carrier and handle an arrested landing, it can handle land-based operation by the Air Force on long runways. Make a plane for the Air Force and well....maybe.

Make two different ones and if you ask me, you're wasting $'s.

If one plane is made for both services, more money can go towards development and long-term money is saved because of the commonality.

Another advantage would be available planes if they ever wanted to expand the carrier fleet from 12 to 14 for instance. If all the fighters were designed for carriers originally, the military could just add a tail hook and they'd be able to operate from carriers.

Getting carrier-capable pilots would be the tough part but certainly having all carrier-capable fighter provides options and flexibility not enjoyed now.

Because when you try to multi-task too much, you just end up with a bunch of planes that don't really do anything all that well. The Air Force uses it's planes much differently than the Navy, so trying to give us all the same plane would only pidgeon-hole both AF and Navy into flying planes with accessories and capabilities they don't need, or worse get in the way. There just isn't much of a need for AF planes to land on carriers, you know?

Besides, both AF and Navy have several planes that accomplish similar, yet distinctly separate missions. You can't really make an F-16 do what an F-15 does, so why should we be trying to make one plane do ALL the missions?

Poke:

I understand the F-16 and F-15 have different missions but why not have a F-16 that works for both services and an F-15 that works for both services.

There are many answers to your question. A few things to keep in mind. Carrier aircraft have to be designed around a certain criteria that the USAF feels degrades their overall performance. They have to have a larger internal fuel capacity (sometimes ;...Ill get back to that later) They must have a robust landing gears and airframes to withstand the shock of carrier traps, and the ever corrosive saltwater enviornment they operate in. The USAF and US Navy have been fighting tooth and nail for ever precious program dollars since the USAF's break from the Army Air Corp in 1947...They both have their own agendas and they both thave their style of doing things. Boom and drouge refueling for USN aircraft, boomers for USAF aircraft. They Navy likes using the two man crew concept for its fighter community, USAF likes one...(F15C F-14D). These are just obvious examples, but you can see where I am going with this. Robert MacNamara tried to unify the NAVAIR and USAF fighter communities with a single airframe called the TFX in the mid 60's..It sucked as a carrier borne fighter, and later became the F-111 and had great success as a medium bomber/ew platform for the USAF.

Remember the USAF and USN both operated the F-4 Phantom at the same time, and that was a USN designed airframe. The threat enviornment that began to emerge in the late 1960's dictated both services really needed two different kinds of aircraft. The USAF wanted a no compromise air dominance fighter to better the Mig-25...The USN needed a air dominance fighter that could out fly any adversary in the air at the time AND also had the long range multi shot ability to engage mass swarms of soviet aircraft and cruise missiles with the range and endurance to eliminate them before they reached stand off range with their anti shipping missiles. Thus we got the F-15 and F-14...Both aircraft are alot alike, but both aircraft are also extrememly different.....and both aircraft have been in service for 30+ years. Now we are starting to shift back to the commonality concept again with the Joint Strike Fighter...which will be a common strike aircraft for both services....The Navy seemed to get away from its preferences when the F-18E/F was forced down their throats...But in reality, both services have different needs, and only missioned designed aircraft for their needs is the best answer.

I really hope that you are not trying to pass off that the F14D cant accomplish the same tasks as an F15, whether it be a C or an E model. Had the navy not pissed away their opportunity in the 80's with their "no self respecting fighter jock would ever drop a bomb" attitude, there may well have been both a straight up long range air superiority / fleet air defense fighter, and a 'Bombcat' version of the F14. That aircraft would have been perfect for both services. as far as your statement about differeing criteria, I agree but to a point. There can never be an argument that loger range, stronger airframes, and more corrosion resistant components would be unwanted under any circumstances as long as the aircraft meets all the standards. THE F14.......QUITE POSSIBLY THE PERFECT AIRPLANE.
Ok ok ok..........so I am an ex F14 guy...........doesnt mean I am biased. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

Good info Chad. Thanks for enlightening me.

I could not agree with you more Hawg...As a proud member of the Tomcat Mafia, I feel that the F-14 with the updated software/hardware mods offers more advantages than compromises for more missions than any other fighter aircraft in the world today. So I feel the same way you do, and hold the same contempt for the squandering of such impressive growth potential.

I posted this link, but I am not certain that you have seen it.


http://www.f-14association.com/

Good place for people with our passion for the Tomcat.

Hey Chad why does it seem that here on the WT forum the threads always seem to coalesce to two aircraft..............the A10 and the F14 ? Maybe its just me but I think there is a cult following going on here. Kinda like the Rocky Horror Picture Show..........only different !

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

YOU CANT FORGET ABOUT 2 OTHER USAF/USN GREAT AIRCRAFT EITHER

A-7 COSAIR II AND THE A-1E SKYRAIDER

THE SLUFF AND SANDY KICKED ALOT ASS IN THEIR DAY TOO

BUT THE F-4,,A-7 AND A-1E ARE THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE AND REALLY THE F-4 IN A CLASS MY ITSELF

THE F-18,NOT A BIG FAN OF AND BACK IN EARLY 83 I EVEN GOT A TOUR AT MD OF THE LINE,F-18 ON ONE SIDE F-15 THE OTHER BUT STILL DIDNT IMPRESS ME

MY FIRST HOG AND TOMCAT DID!

(IN A DAZE) "HOG,TOMCAT,HOG,TOMCAT,HOG,TOMCAT"

<img src=icon_smile_sleepy.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_sleepy.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_sleepy.gif border=0 align=middle>

NO CULTS HERE<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

The USAF wouldn't have been any worse for wear if they'd have been ordered to buy the F-14 instead of the F-15, in my most humble opinion.

F-14's with the P&W F-100-220's would have been great aircraft for the airforce, and the navy.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

I dunno Hawg..I get worried sometimes that my Tomcat banter is falling on deaf, or annoyed ears lol....But I have to agree with snipe...As great as the F-15C/E is the F-14 could have done as well with the correct powerplant/tech mods. Just my humble opinion however.

Goose you are right on. Lets not forget the A3 SkyWarrior / B66 Destroyer. I believe the A3 served much longer but never the less both birds filled vital rolls in dual service.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> MY FIRST HOG AND TOMCAT DID!
(IN A DAZE) "HOG,TOMCAT,HOG,TOMCAT,HOG,TOMCAT"<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If the powers that be had wanted a high/low mix the Hog and Tomcat should have been it. Just picture having one and half to two thousand Hogs and three to four thousand Tomcats.


<img src="http://thumbs.webshots.com/s/thumb4/4/51/4/79545104Boeoxx_th.jpg" border=0>

I also do not feel that it is any small irony that USN aircraft adopted for USAF use, are amongst some of the greatest aircraft ever built. So Vipers question displays alot of logic. Politics...

HEY WHEN WE PUT OUR MIND TOO IT AROUND HERE,I SCARE MYSELF!

THEIR HAS BEEN ALOT OF DUAL FORCES AIRCRAFT THAT TURNED OUT TO BE SOME OF THE BEST,AND WE HAVENT EVEN TALKED HELO'S.

BUT THEN THE MILITARY IS CONTROLLED BY THE CIVILLIANS,SO GOT TO GREASE THOSE PLAMS
IF THE FOLKS IN THE FIELD GOT WHAT THEY WANTED AND NEEDED THE MILITARY WOULD LOOK ALOT DIFFEREANT.

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Goose you are right on. Lets not forget the A3 SkyWarrior / B66 Destroyer. I believe the A3 served much longer but never the less both birds filled vital rolls in dual service.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I strongly disagree with the A3/B-66 comparison. While the A3 was a great A/C, those smart Air Force Generals demanded that Douglas redesighn the wings, fuselage, replace the proven engines, and redo all the avionics producing a over weight, underpowered, over funded product that did not meet the Air Force needs. So instead of a light/medium bomber they ended up with a swell ECM package. the A3 on the other hand needs only to show its longgevity in Navy service to prove the greatness of the orginal design.<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Goose you are right on. Lets not forget the A3 SkyWarrior / B66 Destroyer. I believe the A3 served much longer but never the less both birds filled vital rolls in dual service.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

[quote]
I strongly disagree with the A3/B-66 comparison. While the A3 was a great A/C, those smart Air Force Generals demanded that Douglas redesighn the wings, fuselage, replace the proven engines, and redo all the avionics producing a over weight, underpowered, over funded product that did not meet the Air Force needs. ------

The Force at least installed ejection seats, damn Navy had a funky escape tunnel to bail out from in the old Whale.

IMO, building a fighter/attack bird to Naval specs is the way to go. Tough birds and built to withstand corrosion.

Fun is watching the current crop of UCAV's and UAVs. There must be a few dozen systems either in test or online.

The trend is your friend and taking pilots out of the seat is it.

Jack

I'm a bit biased when it comes to this subject. As I see it, it's the Air Force for a reason. I don't mean to come off as saying it would be a bad idea to include the Navy when setting the requirements for a new design. The F-15, in both c and e models, is a potent fighter. Why didn't the Navy take the design and modify it for carrier operation? You could argue this point from either side. UAVs are the future. Can't wait to see what they become.

It's just a lot harder to navalize a fighter than to de-navalize one.

And fact(OK, OK, it's my opinion) is, the F-14 is really just as good at most things anyway....and a lot better at others.

Imagine a USAF F-14 version without all the extra weight of the USN version, and with the good motors to begin with.



"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

Edited by - m21 sniper on Aug 27 2003 01:05 AM

Ah Sniper.........such visions give me the jibblies !

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

Me too.

An F-14A with almost 8,000lbs more total thrust, and about 5-6000lbs lighter would've been the best USAF interceptor of all time.

The reduced wieght would help it to turn a lot better too.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton