On The Lighter Side: Tom Cruise sparks 'Top Gun' feud between US Air Force, Navy

[mhansen2]

Tom Cruise sparks 'Top Gun' feud between Navy, Air Force - CNNPolitics

"If Maverick really had a need for speed, he could hop into one of our F-15E Strike Eagles! #DYK: They have a top speed of 1,875 miles per hour,"

An F-15E can reach Mach 2.8? Boy, that's news! Anyway, let's see a Strike Eagle, or any USAF fighter, land aboard ship. That would be very entertaining - from a safe distance. Have the crash crew standing by.

 

[harmonica]

it says 1875 mph
Boeing: F-15 Strike Eagle
the F-15 has been very successful compared the the F-14
however the F-14 had not been used in combat as much
the Phoenix missile had 0 kills on the F-14

But Lieut. Mike Bowers, a pilot with the Grim Reapers, Fighter Squadron 101, said it was not an ideal match - the SU-22 is designed primarily for ground attack - and the dogfight did not demonstrate the full capabilities of the F-14. ''I have respect for anybody that would shoot at me,'' he said, ''but the SU-22 was not the greatest threat we could go against.''

LIBYAN ENCOUNTER BUOYS JET FIGHTERS' MORALE

the F-14 was designed to protect the carriers at long range ....
but the training of and the pilots are a big consideration also

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Tom Cruise sparks 'Top Gun' feud between Navy, Air Force - CNNPolitics

"If Maverick really had a need for speed, he could hop into one of our F-15E Strike Eagles! #DYK: They have a top speed of 1,875 miles per hour,"

An F-15E can reach Mach 2.8? Boy, that's news! Anyway, let's see a Strike Eagle, or any USAF fighter, land aboard ship. That would be very entertaining - from a safe distance. Have the crash crew standing by.

With the old 26K engines it could hit 2.5 without going to War Emergency Power. With the new Engine in the F-15E it's a tad faster.

And if a F-15 were in trouble and a carrier was all that was available it could land on it. The recovery methods of a F-18 and a F-15 is identical when using the recovery netting.

 

[mhansen2]

The recovery methods of a F-18 and a F-15 is identical when using the recovery netting.

Wouldn't the steeper sink rate cause the F-15's gear to collapse when hitting the deck?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The recovery methods of a F-18 and a F-15 is identical when using the recovery netting.

Wouldn't the steeper sink rate cause the F-15's gear to collapse when hitting the deck?

In answer to that question, the wing loading of a F-15 is 73.1 lbs while the F-18 is 93 lbs. Looks to me like the F-18 has a steeper sink rate than a F-15.

 

[mhansen2]

So, if the F-15 was forced to sink at the same rate as the F/A-18, the stock landing gear would collapse upon hitting the deck, wouldn't it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, an early design of the F-14 Tomcat looked exactly like the F-15, but was rejected for excessive approach speeds and unsafe carrier landing characteristics. That's one reason Grumman went with the swing-wing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So, if the F-15 was forced to sink at the same rate as the F/A-18, the stock landing gear would collapse upon hitting the deck, wouldn't it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, an early design of the F-14 Tomcat looked exactly like the F-15, but was rejected for excessive approach speeds and unsafe carrier landing characteristics. That's one reason Grumman went with the swing-wing.

You are correct about why it ended up with a swing wing. But the F-14 is a lot heavier than the F-15 where the F-14 had a 95lb wing load. Carrier birds are heavier due to having to put up with the carrier landing. If the F-15 had to land once or twice on a carrier it will be okay but not to do it day after day until you beefed up the airframe and landing gear and the weight would go up and the wing loading would go up.

 

[mhansen2]

I found this. My apologizes for the horrible narrating voice.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I found this. My apologizes for the horrible narrating voice.

The Air Force also looked at adapting the F-14 for their own needs. But when they looked hard at it, it didn't end up with the performance required after the conversion. The Navy and the Air Force has completely different needs and always have. The only exception to that was the F-4 and it really wasn't that good of a fighter for the Air Force but it was a fantastic fighter for the Navy.

The reason I say this is that the Navy used the F-4 primarily as an interceptor. And it was a very good one. For a Fighter, they had the F-8. The F-8 probably would have made a better Air Force Fighter than the F-4 but both services were forced to buy the same aircraft and that was the F-4.