Boeing tries to peddle more F-15E's

[seahawk]

I was under the impression that everything on a modern "Navalized" aircraft has to be (1) shock proof, and (2) corrosion proof.... rather than just strenghten the landing gears.

 

This especially includes the sensitive avionics and electronics, and even the engines themselves. I even recall reading somewhere that Navalized engines tend to eat more birds and other goodies and has to be built for that.

247460[/snapback]

 

Should not be so much of a problem today. Even ladnbased aircraft should be abel to operate over the sea for a longer period nowadays. At least I´m not aware that the old German NAvy Tornados (who spent countless hours at low level over the sea) where any different from the Luftwaffe Tornados.

 

The manin problem imho is getting the airfram ready for carrier landing and for cat launches. And that could mean many changes to the whole structure. I´m sure an F-15 is not ready for a catlaunchEven with the landing gear abel to absorb the power, you would probably ripp of the cockpit. .

[Chris Werb]

This is an argument that keeps coming around: the argument was made that buying more F14s was actually cheaper than the cost of developing and fielding the F18.

247651[/snapback]

 

If someone hadn't deliberately had the F-14's production jigs destroyed....

[Guest pfcem]

The manin problem imho is getting the airfram ready for carrier landing and for cat launches. And that could mean many changes to the whole structure. I´m sure an F-15 is not ready for a catlaunchEven with the landing gear abel to absorb the power, you would probably ripp of the cockpit. .

247755[/snapback]

The F-15E is a very strong airplane.

 

It is desinged to fly at low altitude (very stressfull on the airframe - B-1s are only expected to last for 10,000 flight hours because of it) & manuever at up to 9G (probably more of a pilot limitation than airframe - F/A-18E/F can only do 7.5G). Plus it has GWT of 81,000 lbs (pretty difficult to build a "weak" 81,000 lbs aircraft).

 

Yes, navalizing a land-base aircraft takes more than just fitting an arrester hook but we know how to do it & have done so before.

Edited November 18, 2005 by pfcem

[tankerwanabe]

The F-15E is a very strong airplane.

 

It is desinged to fly at low altitude (very stressfull on the airframe - B-1s are only expected to last for 10,000 flight hours because of it) & manuever at up to 9G (probably more of a pilot limitation than airframe - F/A-18E/F can only do 7.5G).  Plus it has GWT of 81,000 lbs (pretty difficult to build a "weak" 81,000 lbs aircraft).

 

Yes, navalizing a land-base aircraft takes more than just fitting an arrester hook but we know how to do it & have done so before.

247983[/snapback]

 

What do you think the reason is for not using the F-15E then? Both the hornet and eagle are manufactured by Boeing.

 

I can't find information anywhere to explain why the Navy overlooked the F-15E and can only speculate the Navalizing it would degrade performance.

[Guest pfcem]

What do you think the reason is for not using the F-15E then? Both the hornet and eagle are manufactured by Boeing.

 

I can't find information anywhere to explain why the Navy overlooked the F-15E and can only speculate the Navalizing it would degrade performance.

247989[/snapback]

Because after the A-12 fiasco, Congress was not going to accept anything other than a "upgraded" F/A-18.

 

So the F/A-18E/F was developed as an "upgraded F/A-18" to replace the A-6 & F/A-18A/B/C/D.

 

It is unfortunately now replacing the F-14 as well, due to Congress' unwillingless to fund any alterantive (Grumman & the Navy tried various "upgraded" F-14s).

 

While the F/A-18E/F is a good replacement for the F/A-18A/B/C/D (addressing its lack of payload/range), it is a poor replacement for the A-6 &/or F-14 (not matching, much less improving on, the capabilities of eather).

[Slater]

The A-6F was one of the casualties of the funding-hungry A-12 program, as well as the proposed "Super Tomcat"/"Tomcat 21" modifications.

[Chris Werb]

Yes, navalizing a land-base aircraft takes more than just fitting an arrester hook but we know how to do it & have done so before.

247983[/snapback]

 

When did this result in a successful aircraft that wasn't essentially a new plane?

[seahawk]

The F-15E is a very strong airplane.

 

It is desinged to fly at low altitude (very stressfull on the airframe - B-1s are only expected to last for 10,000 flight hours because of it) & manuever at up to 9G (probably more of a pilot limitation than airframe - F/A-18E/F can only do 7.5G).  Plus it has GWT of 81,000 lbs (pretty difficult to build a "weak" 81,000 lbs aircraft).

 

Yes, navalizing a land-base aircraft takes more than just fitting an arrester hook but we know how to do it & have done so before.

247983[/snapback]

 

 

Yes the F-15E is strong, but yet the dorces experienced during carrier operations are very different from forces sexperienced during flying. During flying most of the force are generated by the wings, which bent and try to bent the airframe, there is also a load ont he airframe itself. But looking at a plane they are mostly vertival loads. Horizontal loads are only created when accelarating or braking the aircraft. And those forces are the ones hugely increasing during carrier opaerations. A landbased plane does not experience an accelaration or decelaration of over 3gs in the X axis.

[Guest pfcem]

When did this result in a successful aircraft that wasn't essentially a new plane?

248270[/snapback]

That depends on how strict/loose your definition of "successful aircraft"" & essentially a new plane" are.

 

I have no desire to depate this as it is mostly subjective.

Edited November 19, 2005 by pfcem

[Guest pfcem]

Yes the F-15E is strong, but yet the dorces experienced during carrier operations are very different from forces sexperienced during flying. During flying most of the force are generated by the wings, which bent and try to bent the airframe, there is also a load  ont he airframe itself. But looking at a plane they are mostly vertival loads. Horizontal loads are only created when accelarating or braking the aircraft. And those forces are the ones hugely increasing during carrier opaerations. A landbased plane does not experience an accelaration or decelaration of over 3gs in the X axis.

248393[/snapback]

True, but that does not mean that a land-based aircraft could not handle those forces.

 

Even if they could not, that would be one of the things that would be addressed when a land-based aricraft was navalized.

 

Navalizing the F-15 would not be like reinventing the wheel. Everything that would be involved has been done before. We would simply be applying know knowledge & techniques to a "new" aircraft.

[FlyingCanOpener]

That depends on how strict/loose your definition of "successful aircraft"" & essentially a new plane" are.

248403[/snapback]

 

 

Navalizing the F-15 would not be like reinventing the wheel.  Everything that would be involved has been done before.  We would simply be applying know knowledge & techniques to a "new" aircraft.

248409[/snapback]

 

Gee, don't be so subtle hanging yourself with your own words next time...

Edited November 19, 2005 by FlyingCanOpener

[Guest pfcem]

Gee, don't be so subtle hanging yourself with your own words next time...

248423[/snapback]

Huh?

[Chris Werb]

That depends on how strict/loose your definition of "successful aircraft"" & essentially a new plane" are.

 

I have no desire to depate this as it is mostly subjective.

248403[/snapback]

 

Successful carrier aircraft wouldmeet the following criteria:

 

1) Deemed fit to serve in an operational role from a carrier or other aviation capable vessel

2) Did not lose most of its number in crash landings in the first year of operation

3) Fulfilled the role for which it was designed for at least the number of years originally anticipated (exception - premature retirement due to defence cuts)

 

Note that by at least some of the above criteria, the B-25 and C-130 are not successful carrier aircraft, though they have operated from carriers. The AV-8A/C comes close to failing on 2.

 

Essentially a new plane would simply mean a completely redesigned structure and load bearing components to take the stresses of carrier operations. Most of the processes that would apply to getting from that point to putting the plane into service would be the same as if you had started from scratch, hence the savings to be made would perhaps not be that large.

[seahawk]

True, but that does not mean that a land-based aircraft could not handle those forces.

 

Even if they could not, that would be one of the things that would be addressed when a land-based aricraft was navalized.

 

Navalizing the F-15 would not be like reinventing the wheel.  Everything that would be involved has been done before.  We would simply be applying know knowledge & techniques to a "new" aircraft.

248409[/snapback]

 

The question if is you in the end would not up end with a joke like the F-18 E/F, which practically is anew aircraft and no update of the leagacy Hornets. An F-15 redesign would be even worse. New landing gear, changed wing fr lower approach sppeds and folding mechanism. New structure. Whhich means a heavier plane, which means stronger engines, if I want to keep the payload on the same level. Stronger engines propbably means more fuel consumption, which means more fuel must be carrierd to keep the range. Which again means a heavier aircraft, which probably means a larger aircaft, ....

 

The question is if it woul be worth the effort to convert an F-15, as it does not bring that much new to the fight, that a F-18 does not. I would rather give the F-18 better stand-off weapons and develop carrier based high endurance UACVs, then wasting money by building an navalized F-15.

 

Now if you suggest to navalize the F-22.... you will kill F-35.

[Guest pfcem]

The question if is you in the end would not up end with a joke like the F-18 E/F, which practically is anew aircraft and no update of the leagacy Hornets. An F-15 redesign would be even worse. New landing gear, changed wing fr lower approach sppeds and folding mechanism. New structure. Whhich means a heavier plane, which means stronger engines, if I want to keep the payload on the same level. Stronger engines propbably means more fuel consumption, which means more fuel must be carrierd to keep the range. Which again means a heavier aircraft, which probably means a larger aircaft, ....

 

The question is if it woul be worth the effort to convert an F-15, as it does not bring that much new to the fight, that a F-18 does not. I would rather give the F-18 better stand-off weapons and develop carrier based high endurance UACVs, then wasting money by building an navalized F-15.

 

Now if you suggest to navalize the F-22.... you will kill F-35.

248922[/snapback]

Again, I am saying that we would have been better off navalizing the F-15E instead of developing the "essentially all new" F/A-18E/F.

 

As has been posted here already, conceptual studies done by McDonnell Douglas showed that navalizing the F-15A would add ~2,300 lbs. I suspect that it would be somewhat less for the F-15E as it has already had some strength/weight increases incorporated into it. I doubt that ~2,000 lbs of additional weight would effect the F-15E all that much, especially since they rarely fly at GTW anymore anyway.

 

It would have greater payload/range & unless navalizing it degreased it to a 7.5G aircraft (rather than the current 9G), it would still have superior flight performance than the Super Bug. It would have greater upgrade capability. A larger/more powerfull radar allowing longer-ranged AAMs, for example. The F-15E already has more powerful engines than the F-15A/B/C/D & GE now has 32,000 lbs thrust F110 engines being fitted to the F-16E/F [block 60] & believes the F110 engine is capable of still further thrust increases to as much as 36,000 lbs - also note that the F-14A+ & F-14D used F110-400 engines so GE knows how to navalize the F110).

 

I am sure that if "we" could manage to give Boeing a couple/few billion dollars, they could develope a navalized F-15E but that is unlikely to happen because Congress has already "shot down" many proposed F-14 upgrades/replacements. That means that a navalized F/A-22 (how awesome would that be) is also unlikely.

 

Alas we are stuck with the Super Bug. Not a bad aircraft in its own right, just not all that good when compared to what we could have instead.

[seahawk]

I can agree on that. A navalized F-15E would have been proabaly better then the F-18. But nobody could know that the E/F would turn out to be such a dog.

[Rubberneck]

There were a number of people who knew that Super Bug was going to be a bust. No one listened to them...so they Navy reaps what it sows.

[Guest pfcem]

I can agree on that. A navalized F-15E would have been proabaly better then the F-18. But nobody could know that the E/F would turn out to be such a dog.

248946[/snapback]

Or weight 10,000 lbs more & cost twice as much as the F/A-18C/D!

 

Do you seriously believe that the F/A-18C/D could have been developed into a better replacement for the A-6 (replacing the F-14 came later although there were those who say that comming too) than the F-15E.

[Chris Werb]

Or weight 10,000 lbs more & cost twice as much as the F/A-18C/D! 

 

Do you seriously believe that the F/A-18C/D could have been developed into a better replacement for the A-6 (replacing the F-14 came later although there were those who say that comming too) than the F-15E.

249093[/snapback]

 

I think a navalised B-1B would have been even better - and they already come in grey!

[FlyingCanOpener]

I think a navalised B-1B would have been even better - and they already come in grey!

249145[/snapback]

 

And it has swing wings to keep the Tomcat jocks happy!

[Guest pfcem]

I think a navalised B-1B would have been even better - and they already come in grey!

249145[/snapback]

And it has swing wings to keep the Tomcat jocks happy!

249169[/snapback]

 

You sure could fit a lot of Phoenix & AMRAAM missiles on a B-1.

 

I actually had that thought a long time ago as a way of providing a long-range escort for bombers & transports during wartime. I call it the B-1E (the E is for escort), modifications would include fitting them with AN/APG-71 radar. My thought was for each formation (convoy if you will) would include an E-3 using active radar & an number of B-1Es with their radars off. Upon the E-3 detecting a bogie, one or more B-1Es (depending on the number of bogies) would be vectored to intercept, keeping its(their) radar(s) off. The E-3 would attempt to contact the bogie(s) & get it (them) to alter coarse. Once the bogie(s) is(were) determined to be adversarial & intending to attack the formation, the B-1E(s) would turn its(their) radar(s) on, obtain target lock & (if the aircraft still did not alter coarse) fire.

 

To bad we do not have more B-1s.

[Tranquil]

Yeah ! cool man!!@21 Then the B-1e's could rearm & refuel at the orbiting CVA (Carrier Vehicle Aviation).

 

**groan**

Edited November 21, 2005 by Tranquil

[5150]

That's almost as brilliant as a YB-40, pfcem!

 

If only those evil Congress-critters hadn't gotten involved, we could have Veritechs!

[Calvinb1nav]

I'll have to dig out the source but apparently Rockwell proposed a version of the B-1 with the F-14's AWG-9 and Phoenix missiles as an escort to the air bridge to Europe and ship convoys. The Russians, too, thought of this and were thinking of a version of the Tu-160 with air-to-air missiles to intercept the air bridge (C-141s, C-5s, CRAF, etc.) over the North Atlantic. That would have been interesting to have jet bombers shooting down other jet bombers...

 

PBAR

[Guest pfcem]

That's almost as brilliant as a YB-40, pfcem!

249227[/snapback]

I did not say arm the bombers & transports.

 

 

 

If only those evil Congress-critters hadn't gotten involved, we could have Veritechs!

249227[/snapback]

Veritechs are more along Sampson's line of thinking.