It has two engines.
Better performance than the F-18.
All they had to do was put the hook.
>>27956505
It needed vertically folding wings
Why can't we do it now? Just duct tape some tail hooks to the plane
Ill bite. I believe it's not that simple. Naval aircraft are better designer from the ground up. You can't just add a hook, you need an air frame designed to take the stress of landing impact, and a plane that handles being around seawater well.
>>27956505
Low speed handling
>>27956505
For a good reason.
Just look at the F35, it is crap because it tries to please the navy, the air force and the marines.
>>27956505
The F-14 was explicitly designed as a naval interceptor. It had all the proper reinforcements for carrier operations and it had variable geometry wings that allowed to good Mach 2.0+ performance while also being able to take off and land on relatively short runways. Variable geometry has fallen out of favor which is why modern naval jets can rarely reach or exceed Mach 2.0.
>>27956512
Why fold when it can fly on one wing?
>>27956564
Also why every squadron of F-14s on a carrier had 450 (!) maintainers compared to only 200 needed per squadron of F-18s.
Because the navy was developing the F-14 at the time the USAF was looking for a new air-superiority fighter that became the F-15.
The two entered service just 2 years apart
Tomcat had some influence on what the Air Force wanted from the F-15, but they could do more with it since they weren't limited by the necessities of making it carrier capable.
>>27956505
Whats that missile on the left? Some type of heat sinking? the new model of AIM 9 sidewinder?
>>27956586
i think its sidewinder training missile
>>27956586
Data probe for wargaming.
>>27956505
Current F-15 crew chief here we have an arresting hook the big problem is the landing gear. If you look at the landing gear of an F-18 vs F-15 there is a huge difference with how much more the 18 can take. The nose of the 18 has beefier gear then the main of a 15. So now you are talking about a whole landing gear redesign also the hook of a 15 can't take the impact. I've seen two tail hooks rip out just from catching the barrier on the runway.
>>27956586
It's a p5 pod what this anon said is right
>>27956594
Also if you notice the blue bands that means they are not live ordinance and the 120s don't have fins attached only live ones do
>>27956575
Oh I understand why variable geometry fell out of favor. Keeping the Tomcat running was like a religion. Plus improvements in wing design have made it less necessary. The variable wing also adds a lot of weight. The Su-27 used a medium swept wing with a low wing loading. Powerful engines made it possible to have a aircraft with this set-up also be fast and have good take-off characteristics.
>>27956505
The F-15 has two other problems that make it ill-suited to fill the role of the F/A-18. 1) Its far more expensive than the F/A-18. A Super Hornet is $70m per. Modern F-15's are $100m+. 2) The F/A-18 is capable of both air to air combat and air to ground. In the late 70's/early 80's (when the F/A-18 was adopted) the F-15 was only an air to air platform.
>>27956524
I don't think 'better' is the right term. Naval aircraft are beefier and more robust. They have heavier airframes and landing gear. That extra weight incurs a performance penalty vs. land based aircraft.
>>27956575
Don't forget three times the maint hours plus twice the staff.
The bigger question is why are new build F-15Es not a contender in Canada's F-18 replacement competition?
>>27957320
How do you know that they aren't? I haven't read anything about Canada's issue since Trudeau was elected. I have no idea what planes are being considered or when they are going to pick and that's if they are going to pick a new fighter at all. I get the feeling that Trudeau may not even want to buy a new fighter, period.
No folding wings
Tiny landing gear meant for landing on airfields
Tiny arresting hook meant for emergency airfield arrestment only
Normal, non-reinforced fuselage
Incredibly fast approach speeds, would have to completely redesign the wing
All these issues would have to be fixed, and it would completely change the performance and cost of the aircraft.
>>27956505
Because navalfags and airforcefags hate each others
>>27957349
Current ones in the running I think are the Typhoon, Rafale, and Super Hornet. Also hypothetically it could be the F-35, but if he does that then he'll lose all the brownie points he won with retards who wanted it killed.
Most likely winner is the Super Hornet. It's the cheapest option, which is what they want. It's robust, has good range and speed, there's the potential for getting the Growler as a side benefit, and most important they're already flying Legacy Hornets anyways.
If it's not the Hornet, the Typhoon is most likely. Canada isn't going to want to stock up on a bunch of french munitions just so they have something for the Rafale to carry. Plus it's too expensive.
>>27956505
> all they had to do is put in the hook.
Doesn't work that way. Just putting in the hook results in a waterfall of design changes that cost more than designing a new airframe for cvns.
>>27957450
WHY AM I BEING DETAINED ?
>>27956505
There was a lot more to do than just add a tailhook.
The F-15 lacks the short-field capabilities and low-speed handling a carrier fighter needs, so barring a major redesign you're not going to be carrier capable, even if the landing gear magically becomes strong enough for carrier operations.
And then you've got the issue of role. The F-14 was a fleet defense interceptor while the F-15 was a fighter. The F-15 couldn't carry the long-range AAMs the Navy wanted, nor could it mount the massive powerful radar such missiles entailed.
>>27959723
>>27956517
>>27956524
F-15's have tail hooks.
>>27961024
So do most Air Force planes. There's a difference between the emergency tailhooks you have on land-based aircraft and those on carrier planes though.
>pic related
>>27961096
You can stop a F-15 with the tailhook from about 170 kts to 0 in maybe 100 feet (I don't have my IFG on me) so the tailhook's gotta be pretty beefy. Approach end arrestments are a thing in the AF too.
tomcat is love, tomcat is life
also which rate is it that gets to do yoga with jets launching a few feet over their head? that shit looks fun as fuck
>>27956505
It wasn't gay enough.
>>27961397
pilot/NFO. it's an additional duty, Catapult Officer/"Shooter"
>>27961480
Do they have an inhouse competition like fisters and the master blaster title?
>>27961507
sorry no idea, my wings are silver not gold.
>>27961507
What are these?
>>27956505
Zyou dont put just a hook and its navy crap. The whole fuselage undercrige have be landing impact resistant.
The planes have to be very slim to fit a carrier.
A F15 is huge compared.
>>27961138
Can you do it hundreds of times?
>>27961024
What would happen if an F-15 or F5 Tiger tried to use it's hook to land on a carrier?
>>27964751
>F-15 or F5 Tiger
The F-5 is a little QT3.14.
>>27964751
It would probably break off, the underframe would need to be repaired.
Should only be used in extreme emergencies.
>>27964767
General Dynamics bribery worst day of my life F-20 best fighter chuck yeager ever saw Northrop did nothing wrong low maintenance costs > all WARDOG SQUADRON WEAPONS SAFE HOLD YOUR FIRE UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS
>>27964787
>>27957509
If F-18 wins it will be for political reasons only.
Typhoon and Rafale are simply better planes.
>>27964837
Super Hornet has quite a bit of parts commonality with the existing CF-18 fleet saving costs.
>>27957509
I thought Trudeau completely said Fuck the F35? Maybe that was just a rumor.
>>27964842
The F-18 in all of its forms is a pretty based plane.
>>27964865
He did, but Lockheed can (and probably will) still put in a bid in the competition. They won't win, but still.
>>27956505
The navy didn't want an air force plane, even if it would be modified for carrier ops.
>>27965186
>The navy didn't want an air force plane, even if it would be modified for carrier ops.
In regards to the F35, what the hell changed?
>>27964751
It'd probably come off. They'd definitely put up the net to catch the jet - no way in hell the air boss would trust the hook to do the job on those aircraft.
Video of an end of field arrestor being tested with an f16, and tailhook
https://youtu.be/naKeyHqvcYE
>>27964751
>>27964767
>>27964784
>>27965218
Nah, the hook would probably hold up for one trap at least. The gear would definitely collapse though.
>>27965280
Not even remotely similar to landing on a carrier.
>>27964803
Weeaboo fuck off
>>27965583
>getting mad about chinese cartoons on a chinese cartoon website
>>27965583
>>27965197
Cost, mostly. Developing 5th gen fighters is an expensive process, although it's kinda funny now to look at the f35 as the most expensive procurement program in history.
>>27964842
It's also got parts commonality and compatibility with their major military partner. Slotting into US forces easily is one of Canada's top priorities.
>>27956558
It's crap because it tried to please the marines and in doing so tried to be STOVL. Yes carrier aviation does incur some penalties for being carrier capable but nowhere near as bad as something that has to be designed with STOVL in mind
>>27965658
>>27956558
Because we all know it is impossible to have one plane that makes the Air Force, Marines, and Navy happy.
>>27956505
1) The navy need carrier based aircraft
2) F-15 was focused on AtA and was supposed to be super-duper-ultra capable and to compete with the best soviet aircrafts.
3) You can't mix super performance with the constraints of naval aviation (short runway et al), too many compromises would had make the result a sub-par F-15.
It's like the F-22, there is no carrier based naval F-22.
>>27961507
That file name tho
>>27965696
could just make carriers longer, senpai
How hard could it have been to make the cariers another 500 feet long?
>>27965725
5000 feet long carrier yes!
>>27965667
It was a great plane, we shall never see the likes of which ever again.
>>27965696
Shout out to Saab for being fucking awesome
>>27965197
A couple things happened. The Navy did have a couple separate programs for an F-14 and F-18 successor (NATF and A/F-X), but they ended up being killed by technical issues, cost overruns, and the end of the Cold War. The NATF in particular started as a navalization of the F-22/F-23, but by the end the only commonality between the designs would be the engines. Worse, none of the proposals were actually light enough for carrier operations. The A/F-X that followed was aimed at creating a new naval multirole, but it also ran into technical issues and ended up being cancelled in favor of the JSF program.
And then you've got the question of differing roles. Whereas the F-15 and F-14 have very different design goals (high performance air superiority fighter vs. fleet defense interceptor), the various F-35 variants are very similar. Don't think of the F-35 in terms of the F-15 and F-14, but rather the F-16 and F-18.
Looking at it that way, it makes a lot more sense. The Navy only ever procured the F-18 in the first place because Congress had them evaluate the LWF contenders and they didn't want to be caught flying an "Air Force" plane. With budgets slashing in the 90's, the Navy already had two successive aircraft programs killed on grounds of costs and they weren't in a position to argue for an entirely separate program for little more than inter-service dickwaving, so they got thrown into the JSF.
