F-15N Sea Eagle

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

At the hyperscale page I found this "what might have been" F-15N "Sea Eagle" built by Darren Roberts .... a great job too !!!

http://features02.kitparade.com/f15ndr_1.htm

Enjoy them ! :-)

Attachments:
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d634dff7b2d5ca2.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d634e117b4f2979.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d634e287b717df5.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d634e387b780585.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d634e477b87910a.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d634e577b91c508.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d634e667ba50ea6.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d634e757bb53c24.jpg
http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d634e847bc9a489.jpg

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 885

RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-08-02 AT 09:11 AM (GMT)]That's a mighty warload that Sea Eagle is carrying. Does anybody have artist's impressions of it?

Here's some basic info (from Joe Baugher):

"F-15N
During the development phase of the Eagle, the US Navy was instructed in July of 1971 to take a look at a possible navalized version of the Eagle, provisionally designated F-15N. At that time, the Navy was perfectly happy with its Grumman F-14A Tomcat, which was then in its flight test phase, and was less than enthusiastic about a "Sea Eagle".
The tailhook-equipped, navalized F-15N would weigh some 2300 pounds more than the USAF F-15A. The Navy was unhappy about the fact that the F-15N aircraft would be unable to carry or launch the AIM-54A Phoenix long-range missile. Inclusion of this missile would have increased the weight even further. Consequently, the F-15N proceeded no further than the concept stage.

The US Senate briefly revived the carrier-based Eagle idea in March of 1973. However, the Navy decided instead to go with a mix of F-14 Tomcats and F/A-18 Hornets, and the F-15N was never ordered. "

Best regards,

Ference.

RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

Nice conversion of a F-14D and F-15E? Thought, it would make a hot upgraded F-15F Super Strike Eagle.....How about P & W F-119 engines?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 79

RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

While Congress briefly looked at the F-15N, mainly at the insistence of
senators such as Senator Eagleton who was a Vice Presidential candidate
and wanted to eliminate one of the "super fighters." Being from Missouri
his preference was the F-15.
After the US Navy was able to demonstrate that the F-15 was not suitable
for fleet defense. Years later when NORAD was looking for an aircraft
to replace the F-106 in the interceptor role, several studies were done and several of them picked the F-14A as the number one choice! Althought
they recognized inter-service rivalry made their decision very unlikely
to come true. I think it was the North Dakota National Guard evaluated the
F-4 (modernized), F-14, F-15 and, F-16. Their 1st choice was the F-14, 2nd
the F-15, the 3rd the F-4 Phantom with new engines an updated radar and
last the F-16!
As an interceptor the USAF liked the F-14 for its ability to operate
autonomously, the AWG-9 and, the Phoenix missile.

Adrian

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 319

RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

I think the F-14 is the best intercept fighter of the list and the f-16 the best dogfighter and the F-15 is doing great but only the E-versions is great only i think not as good as the f-111.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

In 1968, the gov in the US changed. It prefered common hardware for the Navy and the Air Force. To avoid a compromised design, the Air Force set the requirements for the F-X sufficently different from the Navys VFX. Plus, the prototype was deleted to advance faster so the gov would not cancel the programme.
The decision for one crew member was not only made to save some 5000 pounds but also to differ the F-X from the VFX. }>

In 1971, congress still wanted to eliminate one of the fighters. The Navy and the Air Force agreed to present a unified view that the planes were designed for different missions. Nevertheless, several alternatives were proposed, including acceptance of one type by both services augmented by purchase of cheaper, lighter fighters. The Air Force agreed to develop the YF-16 and the YF-17. This was more a move to satisfy the cogress than a serios plan. ;-) The AF wanted only Eagles which were regarded as superior to the leightweights.

Several studies were made by McDD for a carrier version of the Eagle, but none of them was good enough for the Navy. An Eagle version was also offered to supplement the expensive F-14, but the F-18 was purchased for that role.

After all, we can be happy that each service refused to take a design from the other. We probably wouldn't have Tomcats or Eagles around now. :o :)

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 213

RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

What a gorgeous f***ing plane. Fantastic model and a great subject.

Member for

18 years 1 month

Posts: 8

The F-15 does already have a tailhook so it could be carrier capable. It could be used in the Navy the way it already is and just designate it F-15N Sea Eagle or 'Seagle'.

I would also rather use a two seater for Naval use.

Why didnt they test the F-15 on a carrier in the first place?

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/systems/dvic223.jpg

http://www.ilexikon.com/images/a/a3/Usaf.f15.eagle.750pix.jpg

http://www.features02.kitparade.com/f15ndr_1.htm

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 253

Sorry, Browno, but having a tailhook does not a carrier capable aircraft make. Most modern U.S. military land based aircraft do have a tailhook, the F-16 for example, but these are the emergency overrun arresting systems that USAF bases have. The differences in force applied to an airframe are very different between these two things.

Look at the -N model. What differences do you see? Modified landing gear (nose from F-18) and the wing fold mechanism. Some not minor differences reside there, but what you can't see is that a navalized F-15 would also significant frame strengthening to withstand the stress of carrier ops.

Hey, nice model and one of those "what ifs" we can visualize.....but not a plausible reality....

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 296

If Rafale can make it for france (carrier and land based) why not the F-15? That save a lot of money...

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 296

If Rafale can make it for france (carrier and land based) why not the F-15? That save a lot of money...

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 296

If Rafale can make it for france (carrier and land based) why not the F-15? That save a lot of money...

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 296

If Rafale can make it for france (carrier and land based) why not the F-15? That save a lot of money...

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 7

Because Rafale was pratically designed from the beginning to have a carrier capable variant.

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 296

ah yes you right!! Archibaald 0 Gabraz 1 !!
Your answer raise another question : is it still possible to navalize an aircraft in our days? I mean, the Typhoon for example... ?

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 521

With the right amount of money...yes it is possible to navalise the Typhoon.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

BAe claims that it is possible to navlise a Typhoon and that they have done studies to prove it. But BAe says a lot of things. ;)

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 296

Ok so let's go for the Sea Typhoon (I saw the name on another thread..logical) on the CVF... if Great Britain cancell it's order for the F35 (unlikely alas??) . I heard GB was a bit angry about technology transfers from the USA on the JSF program. Do you think it can led to a cancelation of the JSF order ? And on this case what happen? a Sea Typhoon or even Rafale M (a common fighter on both CVFs...) :)

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,327

Sea Typhoon is a possibility - one of the deciding factors will be the developing situations with regard to the ITAR restrictions - the Americans had promised the UK a waiver, but the Bush administration and congress have refused to actually give one. It has seriously hurt the UK/US cooperation, and things may get worse if a waiver is not forthcoming.

The sad truth is that the Typhoon is the better fighter (in A2A terms), since the JSF is basically a fighter bomber that has A2A modes, and sacrifices manouvreability for stealth. The stealth aspect is proving to be less of an advantage than some first believed. If UCAV developments materialise, then we may well see the CVFs embarking a mixture of Sea Typhoons and UCAVs.

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 296

"the JSF is basically a fighter bomber that has A2A modes, and sacrifices manouvreability for stealth"

I totally agree with that. That's why I think that the JSF will be no match against a Rafale or Typhoon...

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 296

Could you explain me what a waiver is?