The McDonnell Douglas F-15N Sea Eagle; Tomcat Rival

[@SiameseKiwi]

I’m mildly disappointed they didn’t call the navalised version the F-15 Seagle.

[@98erics]

Then Top Gun would have had to star Steven Seagal.

[@TheIndianalain]

Certainly would have happened if it had been a Royal Navy project...

[@andycraig7734]

If they ever fitted bombs, I sure hope they are painted white to complete the whole splattering your Seagle target.

[@daviswall3319]

I kinda like Smeagle 😎

[@hippiesaboteur2556]

IMHO best comment on this video thus far, well done 😂

[@edwardpate6128]

Ironically the USAF evaluated the F-14 as a possible replacement for the F-106 in the dedicated interceptor role.

[@kdrapertrucker]

Not even the eagle could match the F-14s performance and capability.

[@derrickstorm6976]

​@@kdrapertruckerand most importantly service cost...

[@stevetournay6103]

Well the previous time the USAF had swallowed its pride and bought an aircraft designed for the Navy, it went rather well...

[@mustang5132]

@W M one reason is because adjusted for inflation, the F-14 would now cost almost $200 million per jet making it more than the F-22

[@SoloRenegade]

@@stevetournay6103 coincidentally, both the F-4 and F-15 were designed by McDonnell Douglas.

[@bigtoad45]

While serving on board the USS Midway we had to catch two of the USS Enterprises F-14's. Wonderful airplane. We later launched them off the port catapult as our jet blast deflectors were a bit small for that type of aircraft. The Midway used the F-4S model at the time. Big difference between the two aircraft.

[@GoSlash27]

It isn't a trivial matter to navalize a land- based tactical aircraft (especially a fighter). This is why it's been so rarely successful. It requires not only beefier landing gear, enlarged and folding wings, and a tailhook, but also a stronger airframe and special design attention to saltwater corrosion. Usually by the time you do this, your fighter has lost all or most of its performance due to weight penalties. In contrast all carrier based aircraft are land compatible out of the gate, which is why you see so many successful land based tactical aircraft that were originally carrier designs. I suspect that had McDD ever brought the F-15N to fruition, it would've proven both less capable and more expensive than the F-14.

[@BoycottChinaa]

But.. Sea Eagle would have been shortened to Seagull, natures aggressive air jerk 🍻

[@someoldguyinhawaii4960]

Also - the F-15 carrier approach speed would have been a lot higher

[@hertzwave8001]

@@someoldguyinhawaii4960 that got me thinking, what if the STOL extra wings were added to the f-15n?

[@nightshade4873]

@@BoycottChinaa tbf, an Eagle is just Seagull on roids.

[@keithcharboneau3331]

and you are exactly right, you need only look at the YF-17, modifying that design into the F/A-18 cost it dearly when it came to operational capabilities, the YF-17 was truly an impressive machine, a real fighter plane, the ONLY reason why the YF-16 was chosen over it was the extra cost of the YF-17 due to it's 2 engines over the single engine of the YF-16, which the Air Force already owned the engines, which is why the original F-16's were so cheap, BUT modifying the YF-17 airframe, into the F/A-18 used the same F-404 engines as the YF-17, but the F/A-18 ended up being 9,000 pounds heavier, due to the wings being redesigned, to be come "MULTI MISSION" wing pylons were added to provide for air to ground weapons, something that the YF-16 or the YF-17 were NEVER designed for, the performance of the F/A-18, is abysmal compared to that of the YF-17, it was a REALLY terrible idea, and it would have affected the F-15 even worse.

[@rudyyarbrough5122]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda is the mantra of all the designs that never made it. There are so many good ideas and designs that were proposed but times and challenges change even while exploring new designs. Just like the F-22 when it was begun, fighting Russia was the primary use for that wonderful plane, but by the time it came online, that mission was no longer the primary goal of needed aircraft. A strike plane was needed with dogfighting capability. The Navy has pondered many designs but has a much more complex set of requirements than the USAF. They had the F-8U Mach 2.5+ fighter and the SuperTomcat F-14. Early on they had the F-11 with a J79 engine that would have probably been the fastest jet in the world at that time. Many existing aircraft would have been massively improved with an engine upgrade including the F-14. I love to see all of these videos and think "What if".

[@michaelburke5907]

I was at an airshow in the Midwest in 1987, saw an F-14 on the tarmac, pilot taking questions. He answered one to the effect "Only one aircraft in the world can beat us". I blurted out "F-15"... he just smiled knowingly. Yep, thought so.

[@cjmanson5692]

Here's an idea for a topic: The Convair Model 200 VTOL fighter concept.

[@Tigershark_3082]

That would be a neat video to watch!

[@pburgvenom]

My Dad (RIP) was an F-4 Pilot with time on carriers in Nam and VX5 in China Lake Ca. Later to become a Radar Engineer for Grumman in the F-14. when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and was working @ Pt Mugu Ca VX4. As he was about to “Retire” from Grumman/Life the Navy gave him a flight in the F-14. He was a Rio in the F-4 before and was way too sick to be allowed. The Base commander authorized it anyways.

[@Froobyone]

No aircraft in history has looked more potent than an F14A kneeling at the shuttle in zone 5. Great information. Thank you.

[@stroopwafel4319]

If the F-15N-PHX were to really weigh 9000lbs more than the standard F-15A, it would mean that the F-15N-PHX would've weighed almost the same as the F-14A. Had it been fitted with the PW F100-PW100 like the standard F-15A, it would have had the same thrust-to-weight ratio as the F-14A. In which case, in a F-14A vs F-15N-PHX BFM dogfight, my money's on the F-14A, given the same T/W ratio, but superior wing loading. (As long as the TF30 didn't flame out that is)

[@EstorilEm]

Exactly - and low-speed carrier landing and handling characteristics would have been ABYSMAL.

[@joemaloney1019]

​@@EstorilEmWhat if they put those camards on the F15N that were used for short landing studies with a specially modified F15?

[@ronjon7942]

@@joemaloney1019 oooo, that was a should-have-been version of the Eagle. I’m guessing there’s something to Growling Sidewinder using this AFTI Eagle to consistently kill a Raptor, within DCS. Also, too, with Grim Reapers.

[@johnnycab8986]

9000 pounds does not sound right...considering the F15 weighed 28,000 empty, I highly doubt some structural strengthening, tail hook, new gear, and folding wing tip mechanisms would add an extra 30% of the total weight of the stock aircraft....As far as landing speeds, I'm seeing both the F15 and F14 have a 125 knot optimal landing speed. The F15 body has a lot of lifting body elements to it.

[@rudyyarbrough5122]

@@johnnycab8986 The chart shown in the video showed 4,000 lbs difference with everything else the same.

[@brealistic3542]

The F14 was a excellent design for the role it was made for but had limited versions potential. The F15 started out that way but was designed so well from the start it can do just about anything one can possibly think of and do them well. That my friend is one amazing aircraft.

[@redjaypictures4528]

You know, i actually remember seeing a photo of some declassified early blueprints for the F-14, and apparently the Grumman design team apparently started out by using fixed wings, the tomcat pretty much looked like an F-15 with a longer neck

[@RobertJones-ux6nc]

The biggest thing I miss about the F-14 Tomcat is the ability to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix Missiles with the over 100 mile range.

[@EstorilEm]

Most of the cost involved the swing-wing design and its extremely expensive titanium electron-beam-welded carry-through wing box structure. I wish more people talked about this, as it’s kinda it’s own marvel of engineering - especially for the time. Anyways, that swing-wing is the key here. It’s why the Tomcat was so much more expensive, but also why it was so flexible. I HIGHLY doubt that the “sea eagle” would have had even acceptable low-speed handling performance for the USN, the F-14 was just incredible in that regard. You just don’t get a big Mach 2.3+ two-seat strike aircraft to land at 130mph, that was (and is) just amazing - PLUS it would still out-turn an F-15 at certain speeds (a good tomcat pilot would know / use these min. radius turn figures.) It really was an amazing machine, and I highly recommend everyone watch the Peninsula Srs. video mentioned in the comments. FWIW that channel has many other fascinating lectures and interviews as well, from the space shuttle to the SR-71. 👍

[@greggstrasser5791]

A guy in my radar unit worked at Raytheon.

[@ronjon7942]

Agreed. And agree w your recommendation for the Peninsula Srs channel. The aerospace content from the engineers, technicians, pilots, and historians is amazing and undersold.

[@georgemallory797]

This was fantastic. I'm a lover of BOTH of these aircraft. I miss the Tomcat.

[@Bradly197]

So concise, so easy to listen to, such entertaining subjects, and an individual with an incredible backstory... Why is Ed still at less than 100K subscribers?!?!

[@rokuth]

About the F-111B, Grumman was already the subcontractor to General Dynamics, an d was in charge of the F-111B project. I do think that their experience with the F-111B was what gave inspiration to the F-14 Tomcat.

[@icepicjoey]

The swing wing component of the aardvark was the heart of the Tomcat. They designed the bird around it. Just like the warthog 2 was designed around the gun.

[@JLanc1982]

Grumman had some experience with swing wing tech.The XF10F Jaguar and the F111B. Im sure lessons learned helped out with the Tomcat

[@joemaloney1019]

They got rid of the f111 side-by-side seating and the escape pod for a much thinner cross section for huge performance benefits.

[@rudyyarbrough5122]

The reason for the swing wing was for carrier landing speeds when the fighter had to carry the Phoenix missile. For a fighter to carry the missiles and fuel and still be able to land on a carrier they had to get the landing speed down.

[@edselreynoso3438]

General Dynamics and Grumman shared information on the swing wing F-111 technology. Ed Nash stated that the $400 mil. in development for the F-111B was used for the Tomcat in the form of the AWG-9 and the TF-30 engines. But GD also worked with Grumman on wind tunnel design as well as the structure and other design features that would help Grumman build a successful alternative to the F-111B. GD had already won the F-111 contract with the USAF so there were no sour grapes on their part. It's not like they were forced to hand over technology to a rival company after losing a bid. A decade later GD would come up with the F-16 and the rest is history!

[@Tigershark_3082]

This and the Vought V-1600 are some of the goofiest proposals that probably would've worked somewhat decently. Speaking of, any plans to do a video on the V-1600 and possibly F/A-18L?

[@t65bx25]

ADCOM Tomcat too

[@aaronsanborn4291]

Lmfao yeah just like the F-4 didn't work 😂

[@m1k3droid]

In 1988-1990 I served in the 318th FIS, working on F-15A/Bs. We once went to Miramar to fly against the F-14s. The exercise area was too small to use the Phoenix missile and after all, this was a dogfighting exercise, which the missile was not useful for. We wiped the skies with them all week. Then on the last day, they got to use the phoenix and on the screens back at the base, they became coffins 50 miles outside the exercise area. The main reason the Eagles could beat the Tomcat was that a swing wing fighter is always displaying its energy state by the position of its wings, so the Eagle could take advantage of that to get a superior firing position.

[@EstorilEm]

The energy state and swing wing should go both ways though - you don’t have an option with the F-15 - a tomcat driver can modify their aircraft to take advantage of the F-15s current speed/turn rate. Either way; the carrier requirements dictate a heavier aircraft with greater range and the need for better low-speed handling. Any competition **shouldnt** really even be close.

[@m1k3droid]

@@EstorilEm False. The F-15 has the delta wing which is better in higher angles of attack without needing to signal an energy state. All that the F-15A/B needed for an F-15N was ruggedized landing gear. The USAF landing gear was built for 5,000+ foot runways to maximize payload and fuel range. The airframe already had the G-loading ability to handle heavier landing gear and carrier landings.and it already had the tailhook.

[@30AndHatingIt]

And I’ve read accounts from the Tomcat community of them understanding and learning from this by manually sweeping to trick Eagle drivers, among other tricks of the trade. At one point things were getting so one sided that the Air Force pulled out to save face.

[@aikimechanic]

@@EstorilEm ......although there was a manual setting it's my understanding that generally speaking the wings were controlled automatically via flight control computer. Thus when you push/retard the throttles wings would move after the fact.

[@m1k3droid]

@@30AndHatingIt lol no, the Air Forces only problem was it had never agreed to allow the Navy to use Phoenix missiles at all.. Tomcat pilots cannot just "manually sweep" without consequences, and swept wings simply do not have the maneuverability of delta wings and cannot afford to "manually sweep" without getting into even deeper doo doo.

[@bholdr----0]

...another great vid. I'm glad that this channel is getting the views that it deserves- personally, I look forward to each post, as I'm a fan of aviation in general, and the uncommon aircraft that are rarely covered, in particular) Cheers!

[@gort8203]

RE: the lecture by the F-14 designer at 3:05. Any airplane can "take" another in the right circumstances. However under most circumstances the F-15 had superior maneuverability. This is only natural, as the F-14 was handicapped by the weight and wing needed for the fleet defense role the F-15 did not have to perform.

[@30AndHatingIt]

There are accounts online of many mock dogfights between the two with the 14 taking the edge. The cat could be flown in a dangerous and aggressive manner that let it out rate fight anything in the air.

[@gort8203]

@@30AndHatingIt You should read more carefully. No one ever said an F-14 could never beat an F-15, only that the F-15 is overall the more maneuverable aircraft. As it should be, having been optimized for that attribute, while the F-14 had to meet more varied requirements. They don’t call them the laws of physics for no reason. BTW, there are all sorts of accounts online about everything, including visits by flying saucers. There is actually a web page by an experienced F-14 pilot who claims the airplane was not really that good at dogfighting because it wasn’t designed for that. He’s wrong, of course, but that extreme example illustrates the validity of internet accounts. My statement was based on face-to-face discussions with multiple F-14 and F-15 pilots about dogfighting in these aircraft. But F-14 fanboys will remain fanboys.

[@GoSlash27]

@@gort8203 This argument is rooted an an oversimplification of the term 'maneuverability'. The F-14 was the best 'rate' fighter in existence, while the F-15 was the best 'energy' fighter. Any F-15 (or any other fighter) driver foolish enough to allow himself to get sucked into a turning engagement against an F-14 at 340 kts and below would lose to the Tomcat guaranteed. Any fighter on the planet engaging an F-15 at 420 kts or above would lose to the Eagle guaranteed. The F-14 could and often did beat the F-15 in 1v1 engagements, mainly due to F-15 pilots attempting to turn with them... but overall the F-15 was the better overall air superiority fighter and would come out on top *so long as* it didn't fight by the F-14's rules.

[@gort8203]

@@GoSlash27 No, this argument is rooted in an unwillingness to accept the consensus of reality, and a desire to twist the argument into one you can win. You can argue all the ifs ands or buts you want all day long. The truth is that the F-15 has superior overall maneuverability to the F-14, as it should considering what these aircraft were designed to do. You must not think that USAF would have specified a heavier aircraft with a VG wing on the same thrust if it would have given the F-15 more maneuverability. They looked at that for the F-15 and discarded it because it was inferior. End of story for those of us who accept reality, but you seem to think Grumman worked magic that overcame the laws of physics. Have a nice day.

[@GoSlash27]

@@gort8203 Uhh... I never came here looking to 'win' anything, so you might want to check your mirror. ;) I'm just stating the facts. Had you actually taken the time to read my comment instead of furiously assaulting your keyboard, you would've realized that everything I said actually agreed with you. Have a nice day :)

[@colinbarnard6512]

Here's an open question: not considering 'maintenance costs', would the Tomcat offer anything unique for the battlefield of 2023? Or, is it still being flown in 2023, like the 'cancelled' F-117?

[@Packless1]

For some time it was consdered to give the F-16 'sea-legs' too...! In the 1980, when the Navy was looking for a replacement for their ageing 'Buckeyes' France and Germany proposed a navalized version of the Alpha-Jet... With 2 engines it would be saver over sea... But it wasn't th happen... 🙁 The winner was the BEA Hawk, that became the T-45...! 😢 P.S. Would be nice to have a serie about (good) planes, that didn't make it, like the mentioned F-15N Sea-Eagle, the double-seated A-10 'Night-Warthog' or the YF-12 'Blackbird-Fighter'...

[@yes_head]

Thanks, Ed. Never knew about the F-15N! But even if it had come to pass I have a feeling the F-15N would have met the same fate as the F-14 (for the same reasons), and would have been replaced by the F-18 anyways.

[@tomlobos2871]

that is pretty much what i thought. two different questions may lead to the same answer.

[@tallthinkev]

How much difference between load carrying? Keep F-15 more for strike and bombing?

[@420JackG]

The F-15 is incredibly expensive to run.

[@dat581]

It was the cost of maintenance that did the F-14 in. The F-15 costs far less to look after than the Tomcat ever did. A naval version would be little different in that regard.

[@kdrapertrucker]

Only reason the F-14 was retired is because Dick Cheney didn't get a pay off from Grumman. The super Tomcat 21 would have been a far superior aircraft to the super Hornet. And the super Tomcat 22 would have been he ultimate naval stealth fighter.

[@erichammond9308]

Its more about the pilot. I once watched an ANG F-4 phantom kick the crap out of a Navy F-14 in what could best be described as a "guns only dogfight challenge". The old F-4 got behind the F-14 and there was nothing the F-14 could do.

[@BelgiumsFlyingPast]

while the F-15N concept made sense, i wouldnt see the Navy buying an Air Force design (althought vice versa it was sometimes the case, just look at the F-4, A-7 and the A-3/EB-66 among others, although these were exceptional cases).

[@TrangleC]

What's with the snide against the Su-27? I think it is the most beautiful of all modern fighter jets and the way they managed to decrease the wing loading without increasing drag by making the body create lift and act as a 3rd wing is quite ingenious, kind of a "eat your cake and still have it"-thing, as anyone who knows something about aircraft design and the necessary trade-offs and compromises made between maneuverability/wing loading and speed/low drag knows and should be able to appreciate. That is quite a feat, from an engineering perspective. Add to that the enormous internal fuel capacity making external drop tanks optional instead of mandatory and that despite being more maneuverable, it still has a decent max speed and it is a very impressive machine, at least in theory. It might be let down by the avionics, radar and the training levels of the pilots flying it, or the commanding officers deciding how it is flown and when, but it arguably is the better aircraft, compared to the comparably simple "modern boom and zoom fighter with a big radar"-design of the F-15. And no, I'm not a Russian troll or military fanboy. I am a interested outsider from a country that neither operates F-15, nor any variant of the Su and have no personal, nationalistic dog in that game. Subjectively, as a "aircraft porn pervert", I like both. The F-14, not so much to be honest. It always looked too bulky to me and kind of lazy in its design. It looks like something a amateur using a 3d modeling software to design his own fighter aircraft would come up with. Just 2 engines with a cockpit and all the other stuff a fighter needs slapped on to it in kind of a slapdash "good enough to work" matter. It is nowhere near as elegant as a Su-27, which looks like a mix between a eagle, a crane and a shark. I think without the original Top Gun movie, only a small niche minority among military aircraft fans would count it as one of their favorites. In that regard it kind of is like the "Paris Hilton" of fighter jets. People find her sexy because the media told them so but nobody really can explain why they ride the bandwagon of finding her hot. Yeah, Paris Hilton is a 20 year late, dated reference, but I don't know enough about modern "sex symbols" to make the comparison with a more up to date example, hehe.

[@edselreynoso3438]

Wow! Who allowed "Ivan" on this line? The only people that think any Sukhoi jets are "Beautiful" would also think Klingon females are beautiful. It's pretty clear that the designers at the Sukhoi bureau were fans of the Tomcat. Look at the large cockpit and canopy area of the two seat Flanker. The large widely spaced wedge intakes and the tall twin vertical stabs over the twin engines. Except for the complicated swing wing we can tell who they were trying to improve upon. Certainly not an improved version of any Soviet design, but an American design. The Tomcat has the engines spaced apart to create an aero-tunnel and its perfect for reducing drag when you're carrying weapons - particularly large Phoenix missiles and 2,000 lbs. JDAMS. She's a big girl, I'll give you that but she's got it where it counts. You may like the Flanker more and I'll support your right to bad taste, but if the Russkies were so smart, why are they always behind the U.S. when it comes to design innovation? Dosvidanya, tavarisch! 🕌

[@TrangleC]

@@edselreynoso3438 I'm German, not even East-German. Just so you can at least use the right dumb nationalistic insults. I suppose you can't argue over aesthetics, but the Su-27 is objectively elegant and beautiful and to say otherwise is just silly. "Aero tunnels" do not reduce drag. There are reasons for why people designing aircraft almost always try to avoid aircraft having too much surface area, which is why you usually try to put the engines near the main body of the aircraft. The Su-27 is a exception because as I said, they designed the body as sort of a 3rd wing, so it would create additional lift and reduce the wing loading on the actual wings. For that they had to put the engines outside of the main body, so to say. I don't particularly like Russians either and Russian military nerds were among the most obnoxious people you could run into online, in my opinion (only topped by British military nerds trying to tell you that the rifled gun on the Challenger 2 tank supposedly was superior to the smooth bore guns on other MBTs), but this is a historical fact anyone who knows something about military aircraft design is aware of. So there goes your silly idea of the Su-27 being a ripoff of the F-14. Outside of them needing a place to put the Phoenix missiles, there is no aerodynamic reason for the "aero tunnel" on the F-14.

[@Flyingcircustailwheel]

Agreed wayy better looking than the box shaped Eagle. I prefer the Su-30's. If given the choice I would absolutely rather fly a Flanker lmao.

[@edselreynoso3438]

Thanks for your response. I was a little more juvenile than usual with my initial response. I have a very strong bias since I retired from the USAF years ago. I remember having these arguments with my high school friends back in the '80s about which fighter could beat the other (F-14, F-15, and F-16) as if we really knew from first hand experience one way or the other. How silly it all is. You articulated your case very well and have made me reconsider the Flanker in technical aerodynamic terms. I too think, in a weird way, the Flanker has some nice lines for being such a big girl. I even have a couple of models of her in my stash waiting to be built up. They are impressive and formidable birds. I'm glad I could contribute to the conversation by seeing who has conviction to back up their opinions. well done mate.

[@einundsiebenziger5488]

@@edselreynoso3438 You are obviously blinded by national bias. The only actually ugly aircraft the Russians built after WW2 is the Mi-28 attack helicopter, because they wante to beat the AH-64 Apache in ugliness. All of their jet fighter and bomber designs look better than their American counterparts. The F-15 by the way looks almost like a 1:1 copy of the MiG-25 with its huge, boxy air intakes (both great-looking planes, btw.) and the Su-27 maybe inspired by the F-15 but its lines are way more elegant. The Su-27 and the MiG-29 series are objectively beautiful aircraft.

[@CT9905.]

The MiG 29 Fulcrum, you forgot about!!!!

[@lanagro]

Ed, the Fokker S-14, one of the world's first (if not THE first) dedicated jet training aircraft, and yet largely forgotten by everyone. This would be interesting.

[@edselreynoso3438]

The T-33 was the pioneering jet trainer of the world. Once again, American.

[@christopherwang4392]

Given the heavy weight of the AIM-54 Phoenixes, the F-15N Sea Eagle would have been more suited as a naval dogfighter with its AIM-9 Sidewinders, AIM-7 Sparrows, and AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Still, it would have been interesting to imagine an alternate timeline in which the Sea Eagle and Tomcat are flying alongside together for the United States Navy.

[@blue387]

A navalized F-15 reminds me of the Vought Model 1600 which was a navalized F-16, which could be the topic of a future video. I also recommend a video on the F-18L version that was proposed but never built.

[@bobroberts6155]

Thanks Ed.

[@kentl7228]

The F14 for land based duties, lightened as carrier requirements are not required, would have been interesting. The performance would have improved,.tbough I do understand that pilots that flew against the F14 in mock dogfights, said the F14 was easy to predict due to watching the wing sweep. I wish the resources were put into modifying the F14 to take the excellent engines in the F15.

[@richardwarfield7386]

I has to pause the video because I was laughing so hard when you said "Sea Pig"

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great video, Ed.

[@shauny2285]

Hopefully, the US Navy's reliance on F18s / F35s for fleet air defence works out against peer to near peer adversaries.

[@egyeneskifli7808]

Nice drawings about the F-15N. There is a few problems though. Mainly the landing gears. Those landig gears are laughably unsuitable for carrier operations. All had to be beefed up significantly. But, you have to increase the gear wells as well. The problems with it: -In the F-15 the main landing gear well is under the air intake. If you increase the weel wells, then you must decrease the hight of the air intake. Less air, weaker engines. -The nose gear well must be increased in size, maybe even more. You need a double weel gear for start. You need much wider steering angles and thanks to the heavier gear stronger, bigger, heavier steering motor. And guess what, there is the avionics bay above the gear well. So you have to rearrange the whole avionics package of the aircraft, maybe throw out a few things. Alternatively you may chage the outer dimensions of the aircraft. That definitely means more drag. And by the way: the Phoenix-es on the rear positions bring up another problem: their fins are fully exposed under the fuselage. Those fins definitely slams onto the deck during carrier landing. Or you must jettison them before.

[@blue387]

9:37 Senator Eagleton represented Missouri, home to McDonnell Douglas

[@iberiksoderblom]

I personally think, that your speculations are very correct. But it was not to happen.

[@robbabcock_]

Wonderful video!

[@goddepersonno3782]

considering the interservice rivalry, I doubt that the Navy would ever have accepted an air force fighter especially, as you said, after the disastrous TFX program. The Navy fought hard to kill TFX with some of the most unreasonable requirements imaginable, and I'm sure that they would have worked their magic on the F-15N to make it as profoundly unappealing to congress as possible And let's face it, Top Gun would never have felt as profoundly pro-navy as it did without the Navy's own F-14 Tomcat

[@shannonkohl68]

Maybe... but the USAF was at the time using the F-4, a Navy fighter. And of course the F-111 was a Grumman project, whereas the F-4 was like the Sea Eagle a McDonnell Douglas plane. So I suspect the Navy would have been happy with it had it had a clear superiority in the role.

[@GoSlash27]

'Unreasonable'? The USN needed a fighter that could fight and actually operate from aircraft carriers. The F-111B couldn't do either. If anything was 'unreasonable', it was the idea that a land based bomber could ever become a successful carrier based fighter. I blame that on McNamara's decision to let the USAF drive the design instead of the USN.

[@fredhercmaricaubang1883]

You guys left out the A-1E Skyraider & the A-7 Corsair II as these two aircraft were shared between the USN, USMC & USAF, although the latter wasn't used by the USMC but joined the USAF in the '80s. And if the Grumman F-11 Tiger had successfully entered service, it also would've been another joint service fighter.

[@gort8203]

@@GoSlash27 The Navy drove the design of the TFX as much as USAF did, if not more. The F-111B was not meant to be an air superiority fighter, it was meant to be a Phoenix missile fleet defense interceptor, which is what drove the swing wing and the side by side cockpit seating. I put more detail in a separate comment if you want to read it.

[@GoSlash27]

@@gort8203 The phoenix/ AWG-9 system and side- by- side seating weren't deal breakers. The fact that the plane was too heavy for supercarriers, couldn't fit down the elevators, and obstructed the view of the landing area during final approach were. Plus the fact that it couldn't dogfight at all. That wasn't the Navy's doing, it was the USAF.

[@kenjackson5685]

1st class Ed...thanks for sharing

[@Rockstago]

Talking about recruiting; I was in the Navy in the early 1990's. I would say 80% - 90% of the people I was in the service with told me that the reason they joined the navy was because of the movie "Top Gun". I wonder, with military participation at an all time low in America, if the sequel "Top Gun Maverick" will have the same effect it did following the original movie?

[@shannonkohl68]

Just a nit, but Sen. Eagleton's backing of the F-15 likely had everything to do with the fact that it was designed and built in Missouri where he was Senator. But maybe I'm just too cynical.

[@EstorilEm]

I guarantee you that played a huge part (based on later plays by senators and their lobbyists) - very good point.

[@sebastien3351]

One thing that is seldom mentioned is, by the time the F-15's frame is strengthened for carrier operations, change some materials to fight off the corrosive effects of saltwater exposure, the weight gain of the F-15N offset any projected advantages the F-15A had over the F-14A. The F-14D's performance came close to matching the F-15C when the F-14Ds received the new GE F-110 engines. NOW, the F-14As ability to take-off from the carrier, goes several hundred miles, time of patrol station to intercept the Tu-95s with anti-ship missiles, the F-14 would still be better interceptor.

[@VELIkiq8]

Ed would you be able to cover the DAR-10? Its a Bulgarian WW2 Light bomber, but due to lack of ablity and mitivation i couldn't find much info other than that on Wikipedia.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

I'll certainly have a dig about 😁

[@VELIkiq8]

Thanks! Means a lot.!

[@tonyz7216]

Brilliant video. What about the 'Sea Horse', the navalized project for the P51 Mustang.?

[@michealoflaherty1265]

Could the undefeated champion of the skies have got it's feet wet? I would say yes but I guess we will never know. Great video Ed. Thanks.

[@sidharthcs2110]

How close are F15 C and Flankers conceptually?

[@paulmorgan8254]

I'm a big F14 fan but the initial engines were so underpowered they were dangerous. The aircraft was designed in conjunction with to carry the AIM54 Phoenix AA missile which had a huge range and glided to it's target. The use of the AIM 54 goes against normal fighter doctrine to fly high and shoot down, when it became public that if they were going to use that weapon they would go low and fire upwards to avoid heat sources was incredible. It was then that the problem of identifying your target over that range made that weapon impossible to use. The F14 had a brilliant gun cam but it couldn't see 120 miles. There were also so many service issues as it was a complicated aircraft that eventually the F18 and the super took over it;s roll especially as both amraam & sidewinder missiles had huge range increases.

[@Jedi391]

I LOVE the F-14, but it probably would have been for the best if they had gone with the F-15N over the F-14.

[@davidrendall7195]

If we are playing 'the path not taken!' - If the British Government had gone ahead and built the CVA-01 aircraft carriers in 1966, they would have entered service in the early 70s - right when this battle between F-15N and F-14A was being fought. Now the British carriers would have been flying the Buccaneer S.2 (since 1966) and Phantom (since 1968), but the RN only got a very few of each and with attritional replacement they would probably have been spent by 1980, unless more aircraft were purchased in the early 1970s. What do they buy - ageing S.2s and F-4Ks, the F-14A or F-15N? F-14A would not have been able to operate from CVA-01, (which was limited to a pair of 250ft catapults) but the smaller F-15N could have. Even a small foreign purchase would offset so much cost of the F-15N development programme, I can see that being a big swing towards the McDonnell Douglas aircraft in USN service. The knives were really out for the F-14, it only survived because Iran bought some.

[@GoSlash27]

Also, I disagree with the idea that the F-15N would've still been in service today had it been selected. The Legacy Hornet, developed a full decade *after* the F-15, is now retired. Carrier operation is a lot more punishing to airframes than land based operation and they eventually wear out.

[@kirkmooneyham]

The USAF are buying a new version of the F-15, the EX model. It will have many upgrades over the F-15E Strike Eagle.

[@GoSlash27]

@@DIREWOLFx75 I agree with most of this, but would definitely disagree with the statement that the F-15 was 'sturdier' than the F-18.

[@GoSlash27]

@@DIREWOLFx75 I don't see how it could possibly take more abuse since it wasn't built to withstand severe punishment while the Hornet was. For sure no F-15 has ever been subjected to the violent impacts and structural shocks that the F-18 was subjected to daily over decades of service. Whoever told you this... I have no idea how they could even begin to compare the 'durability' of the two airframes, let alone draw such a conclusion. I don't even know how they'd be in a position to compare the two since they never operated together.

[@kaionski1105]

@@DIREWOLFx75 Having worked phase dock in the late 80's, the A's and B's would have needed a lot of work to survive one carrier landing. By the 1200 hrs the landing gear were prone to cracking, the mounting structure was usually stretched, the nose longerons were often cracked, and the wing leading edges where starting to peel off. The F18's that I saw appeared to have much more structure around the landing gear fo a much smaller acft.

[@GoSlash27]

@@kaionski1105 Yeah, that kinda goes without saying. No F-15 would have ever survived even a single carrier launch or landing in stock form let alone decades of them. The spindly little landing gear would've snapped like twigs. But the airframe itself.... Could *it* have survived the stresses of carrier ops with all the necessary landing gear, tailhook, etc without heavy modification? I highly doubt it, since it wasn't designed or built to handle that sort of abuse.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Looks like i am a day late here....Thanks Ed Nash..... Shoe🇺🇸

[@christophernolan8761]

Was the F-15N considered as alternative when the Navy began to develop the F-18?

[@kibathemechanic4967]

Could you do a video on the original F-14B & C? Or even on the Grumman pitch to replace the F-106 in US Air Force service with the F-14?

[@SPak-rt2gb]

For some reason I liked the Republic Aviation F-15 proposal. It looked like a single tail, fixed wing F-14

[@sealove79able]

As always a great amazing very interesting video about an aircraft I knew nothing about Mr.Ed.Not that I do not like the videos about the canvas and wicket two storey biplanes but something with a bit of electric circuitry is welcome indeed. Can you make some videos about the C130 A400M or the soviet four engined turbo prop transport planes? Have a good one and I find the fact that the F14 had the nose camera capable of identifying targets 40kilometers away mind blowing.

[@cowboybob7093]

1:30 _Well played!_

[@bulukacarlos4751]

Anytime baby!

[@jwrappuhn71]

Excellent.

[@kellymouton7242]

Was some of that tomcat footage from The Final Countdown?

[@Kabayoth]

Grumman made a very elegant fixed wing, single-seat concept for the F-14. Looked like an SU-27 and an F-14 had a love child. The reason was cost, but I wager it'd have been the way to go. The swing-wings, while sexy, were a rapidly aging technology. Take a look at the crazy things a Flanker can do, and tell me superior aerodynamics are in action. Every subsequent iteration of the Tomcat was saddled with the swing-wings, and it's simply not necessary. The stealthy Tomcat would be hampered by them. Their load carrying capacity was limited by them. And the additional weight and complexity of them made for additional maintenance. Am I suggesting the Tomcat isn't a thoroughbred? Hardly. I am suggesting the swing-wings were unnecessary. Trust me when I say the fixed-wing Tomcat was nothing to sneeze at. It would have done everything with two seats the existing one could do. The modern iteration would be something like the F-15EX, with a dash of Su-35 thrown in for good measure. Grumman likely stuck with the swing-wings because of the investment they had made developing them prior to the F-14 program. However, if they had done what Sukhoi did and nailed down the aerodynamics, they would have produced an excellent product. This was the Ironworks, after all, and they knew how to make a Navy jet. Had the GE F110 engines been available at the time, it would have been unbeatable. Similarly, if the Pratt anf Whitney J75 engine been studied, the TF30 could have been let go.

[@AlphaWhiskey_Haryo]

if the USN use the F-15N, top gun movie would've out of story to tell

[@HB-C_U_L8R]

With adjustment for inflation the purchase price of the F-14 was over $250,000,000.

[@DayRider76]

I was a little kid when the F-15 came out. Man did that start a lot of fights. Which one was better.

[@eze8970]

TY 🙏🙏

[@smithyMcjoe]

The F15 Sea Eagle would get renamed to the "Seagull" so quickly by the troops.

[@edselreynoso3438]

We already call them "Beagles" by guys working non-F-15 airframes! 😂

[@smithyMcjoe]

@@edselreynoso3438 Why Beagles my dude?

[@edselreynoso3438]

Its a pejorative term to show contempt for "the other guys" . Pride in the airframe you're working (F-16, A-10, F-35, etc). Sounds like Eagle.

[@Idahoguy10157]

I usually think converting a land based aircraft to CV capable as a mistake. But as the F-15 was a McD-Douglas creation it bears consideration.

[@tacticalmanatee]

it would have given the naval air wing some serious legs if it had remained in service into the modern day. The newer F-15 variants have massive fuel capacity and flight time.

[@jimsvideos7201]

Ironically the USAF ended up using Phoenix rounds as targets, launched from... F-15s.

[@moosifer3321]

Leave it to Naval Tradition and Grumman`s `Cats`. TWO Superb Aircraft but, each to their own - Oh and F*ck the Bean Counters!

[@kdrapertrucker]

Air force aircraft hooks were for emergency use only and were single use only. Mainly for landing on taxiways if the runways were bombed out.

[@gort8203]

I've never seen a USAF taxiway with an arresting cable, but all runways at fighter bases have a cable at both ends so an arrested landing can be made at the approach or departure end depending on the situation.

[@pbdye1607]

The Sea Eagle finally gets mentioned at 5:48.

[@atempestrages5059]

Hmmm, pity we didn't see them go the other way with an F-14 program shared by the US Air Force. You get the better engines installed at scale, rather than dribbled out and likely an emphasis on Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) in radar upgrade packages. The cost saving between the Eagle and Tomcat are substantial, but factoring in scale I think you'd come close. Having only one High capability fighter would have been a huge benefit for upgrade programs. Scroll forward and we've got people looking for a Strike Eagle in the Tomcat, which we know was doable even on a shoe-string budget.

[@heretolevitateme]

The F-14 is a childhood favorite of mine, but the carrier-intercept mission it was designed for never really happened. The AIM-54 was about a mission critical as traveling Mach 2 has proven to be. The amount of money wasted on these features by the military-indistrial complex is staggering. For my money, I guessing "drone wingman" is the next weapons feature that is never used against an enemy.

[@richardprzybylek5847]

Funny thing is that the navy put out its best in top gun but the air force used f16s in Iron eagle kinda of strange but nothing good is out but these

[@jamesrogers5783]

in procurement , often logic is set aside for any number of reasons. the aim 54 needed a big radar, which needed a big AC --and thats why the tomcat. the tomcat was a quite capable fighter and it could often out turn and burn much smaller fighters . the downside was it took many man hours to keep it AW, and was frightfully expensive to operate. when the aim54 was finally OBE, smaller ac looked to be a less costly solution.

[@keithtarrier4558]

excellent!

[@shots-shots-shotseverybody2707]

If the f-15 is the Sea Eagle then the f-35 is the Sea Hag

[@TK421-53]

…ah the Flanker is definitely up there. Nostalgic feelings aside, I love the 1960-ies era of fighters, especially the F-4 and MiG-21 (and Mirage III), and in the 70-ies the F-14, F-15 and F-16, I really like the lines of the Flanker family more than the contemporary US birds, with the exception of the early F-16s with its clean lines (now it is an ugly hunchback of a mule). The F-15 has proven to be a very capable multirole platform, just like the F-4 before it. So it is not wrong to speculate its potential as a carrier fighter.

[@Law0086]

I like the Tomcat. Fairly under, AND over, rated aircraft.

[@Aetherometricist]

The F-15N Sea Eagle, or Seagull for short...

[@johndavey72]

Ed. Looking at most (all) of the comments it seems you've captured a particularly knowledgeable audience ........well not quite . You lost me at 9 minutes !!!! Thanks Ed.

[@cartoonfan959]

regarding F-14 prpganda you forogt The Final Countdown film with Kirk Douglas

[@JT-gq8wv]

What happened to all the AIM-54s?

[@brucewelty7684]

interesting idea.

[@keithcharboneau3331]

The F-14 was NEVER more expensive than the F-15, the F-14A was sold to the Navy at $30,000,000 from 1971 till 1986 when the F-14A production line was done, the new airframe builds of the F-14A plus, later to be re-designated to the F-14B first even though a minimum numbers were built, because it was an interim program to prove out the GE F-110 engines, was $40,000,000 and when the F-14D started production was a HUGE upgrade to the F-14 airframe, and came at a cost of $55,000,000 for new airframes, and $15,000,000 to remake F-14A airframes up to F-14D's, the F-14 was SUPPOSED to get it's 1st upgrade, (ENGINES ONLY) in 1978, at the expiration of the contract that Grumman signed with Pratt & Whitney for the engines for the F-14, that upgrade did NOT happen and I will explain why in a bit until 1986. Now the F-15 cost the USAF $55,000,000 from DAY ONE, and after the F-15 became operational in 1977, the Air Force sent the F-15A and some of it's pilots to Miramar for Top Gun, they discovered that the F-14A (EVEN WITH THE FLAWED TF-30 ENGINES) still bested the F-15A more often than not, 59.4% win rate for the F-14A compared to the 40.6% win rate of the F-15A, and lobbied congress to take the money that was slated for the F-14 RE-ENGINE program in 1978 to finance the F-15's 1st MAJOR upgrade for an airframe that was less than 2 years old, and as that was approved, the F-14 was forced to wait for a MUCH NEEDED minimal upgrade, and the F-15A's on the line in production were finished and then taken right back to the front to be IMMEDIATELY upgraded to the F-15C without even have flown 1 time, at an additional cost of $40,000,000, so when the F-15C got into the Air Force inventory, it already cost $95,000,000, and the already flown F-15A's were cycled through the upgrade line, again with the extra $40,000,000, WHEN those airframes were completed, the F-15C's continued to be built at a cost of $65,000,000 per plane, still a full $10,000,000 MORE than the F-14D's cost 15 years later. When the Air Force again sent the F-15 to Miramar for Top Gun, this time with the C variant, they were able to best the F-14A's with a 50.4% win rate compared the the F-14A's 49.6% win rate, so PERFORMANCE wise in dogfighting, the F-14A, again with the flawed TF-30 engines, were very closely matched with the F-15C, so the Air Force spent $95.000,000 each for a plane that could just barely beat the Navy's $30,000,000 fighter, Now in 1990 when the Navy first flew the F-14A plus at a Top Gun class, it DOMINATED the F-15C with a win rate of 64.2% to the F-15C's 35.8% win rate, the Air Force never again would fly their F-15C's against ANY F-14 unless it was the F-14A model only. but I digress, you stated the F-14 was more expensive than the F-15, this was NEVER THE CASE, the F-15 was ALWAYS expensive, this is why production was limited, the Air Force wanted ALL of their F-4 Phantoms to be replaced by the F-15, but because the F-15's expense, Congress told them NO, and for the reason of the F-15's very high price tag, is exactly why the F-16 was created to begin with, since congress would not allow the Air Force to replace all of their F-4's with F-154's the Air Force had to come up with a cheap alternative to replace their F-4's, and since in the beginning, the F-16 was cheaper than still being built F-4's, the F-16 was picked to replace the F-4's that they could not replace with the F-15.

[@mbryson2899]

"Sea Eagle?" Seagull? I can hear it now. 😅

[@spinosarcadegaming4538]

When the F401 didn't pan out as intended, the Navy should have had the Tomcat fitted with the F100 engine from which the F401 was developed. Admittedly the F100 was having some issues at the time, but those were resolved more satisfactorily than the TF30's issues ever were. To top it off, the F100 delivered as much as 5,000lb more thrust than the TF30, so the Tomcat's power loading issue would have been largely mitigated as well. It wouldn't have been the same as the eventual F-14B and D, but it would have been far better than the criminally underpowered TF30.

[@audacity60]

What if the USAF Eagles had got the Phoenix AAM?

[@ronjon7942]

Don’t think the Phoenix was intended as a fighter killer…although as a MiG-25 killer, the AIM-54 might have been a weapon of choice. It, and it’s forerunner, the AIM-47, were meant to be long range AAMs to intercept bombers and maybe cruise missiles, although in saying this, I have no idea how maneuverable either really was. Maybe a good BVR AAM, but less of a high g missile like the current Python, IRIS-T, or Meteor.

[@Farweasel]

The decision to save relative pennies on the F-14's engines needlessly cost several lives of US Navy fliers. However Iran (pre-revolution) was in the market for a heavy fighter. They evaluated F-15s & F-14s and chose the more costly F-14 IIRC, in their view it was the more agile yet could lift more ordinance.

[@robertdragoff6909]

This wasn’t the first time a land based plane would be adapted for use by the Navy. There was the P51H, a version of the Mustang that was considered for use on aircraft carriers. A Navy version of the F15 is a new one on me…. I wonder, how many Air Force planes were considered for Navy use?

[@Packless1]

It wasn't bad performance, but difficult handling at landing and takeoff why there wasn't a Sea-'Mustang' ☹

[@GoSlash27]

The FJ Fury was basically a navalized F-86. It served the fleet well. It's very rare that this happens though. It's very difficult to take a land based fighter and convert it into a suitable carrier fighter. You basically have to redesign it entirely from scratch.

[@robertdragoff6909]

@@GoSlash27 I think the Brits had a problem when they converted the Spitfire into the Seafire….. But you’re right about the Fury being a good Naval fighter

[@StevenRogers-hw9dj]

@@GoSlash27 The F-86 was originally based on the FJ-1 Fury. After adding the swept wing, the F-86 became the basis for the later FJs.

[@richieismyhero]

I remember playing microprose F15 strike eagle and many missions would end by landing on an aircraft carrier at the time i did think it was a good idea at the time. Dont get me wrong the Tomcat owns my heart and always will but the Eagle is a beast. Great video, thanks Ed

[@gort8203]

The failure of the F-111B has become a mythical narrative on the internet. The reality is that the Navy changed its mind about the roles its next fighter needed to perform. The lessons of the TFX program are commonly misinterpreted, but if you repeat a narrative for decades it becomes "truth". The idea that one basic airframe could fulfill two different roles was not a dumb idea at all. History is full of examples of aircraft that were versatile enough to fly for different services and even perform different missions. The original requirements presented by the Navy and USAF were not incompatible, but the requirements changed. Initially the TFX program was reasonable because USAF and USN were both asking for a large aircraft that could lift a heavy load of fuel and weapons, with long range or long loiter, plus high-speed dash or intercept. Twin engines and an innovative variable geometry wing were called for, and DOD logically assessed that it would be wasteful to develop two very expensive advanced airframes when a single one with some variations could do both jobs. The reason one basic airframe could do both jobs was because the original USN specification was for a fleet defense fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It was not originally intended to be what later became the F-14, but to perform the role meant for the Douglas F6D Missileer, with the addition of supersonic dash capability. I was never meant to be a dogfighter. The biggest difference between the airframe requirements of the two services was that USAF wanted a tandem cockpit and USN want side by side seating. Boeing tried to make both services happy, but MacNamara’s DOD thought USAF could suck it up and have the crew sit side by side. This is ironic considering that when the Navy cancelled its version USAF was stuck with the cockpit it didn’t want, which also ironically contributed to the airplane being too ungainly for a dogfighter. But if the Navy had expected the F-111 to be a dogfighter it would not have insisted on the side-by-side cockpit over the objection of the Air Force. The F-111 cockpit was suitable for a radar interceptor, but not for an air superiority fighter. The original idea wasn’t dumb -- what happened was that needs changed. USN revised its needs as result of combat experience in Vietnam, and realized they also needed an air superiority fighter to replace the F-8 and F-4, but couldn’t afford that in addition to a dedicated fleet defense aircraft. Thus, the TFX would now have to be able to dogfight as well as be a missile interceptor. The F-111B could have worked as a missileer, but it was too fat and underpowered to compete as an air superiority fighter. It was proper of the Navy to recognize that its needs had evolved. This was perhaps the beginning of the Navy realizing that budgets and hangar decks did not have room for so many specialized aircraft. USAF desperately needed the F-111 to replace the F-105, so they sucked it up and accepted the heavy airframe caused by the loveseat cockpit they never wanted.

[@edselreynoso3438]

Fascinating! 🤔

[@toomanyuserids]

We could had the F-15E naval for vastly cheaper

[@McRocket]

I think your hypotheticals near the end of the video are GREAT. And they all make significant sense, imo. I have never considered them before. I would like to add that I read in the 1990's that the AIM-54 Phoenix was a bit of a dud. That on one test - six of them were fired at slow, non-maneuvering missile targets at long range. And only one of the AIM-54's hit an 'enemy' missile. Though the Iranian's swear that they were effective. Whatever that is worth. Also, I have to take whatever the Tomcat's designer says about his 'baby' with a huge grain of salt. Too much bias there for my taste. But I am a cynic. I think the Navy just wanted their own aircraft. Plus, a fast 'Phoenix truck'. So...they bought the F-14. Thanks for this video. ☮

[@ronjon7942]

I’d like to review the test of the Phoenix. It’s progenitor, the AIM-47 Falcon, pulled off some pretty amazing tests when shot from the YF-12, after all.

[@McRocket]

@@ronjon7942 I don't recall where I read it - 25+ years ago. But the fact that the Phoenix ended production even though no other air-to-air missile could match it's range? Even though other aircraft could have operated it (with some avionics modifications)? Proves that it could not have been THAT effective. ✌

[@aftastosk6016]

The F-15 was designed by MD as a F-4 replacement, "detuned" to a dedicated single seat air-to-air fighter to match USAF specs, however essentially it was from the beginning a 100% F-4 replacement. It's not a coincidence that, contrary to the F-16, F/A-18 (and many other non-US fighters) it needed no airframe changes to become to 2-seater and the changes from the F-15A/C to -E have been only structural. The F-15 could had been very easily converted to a naval fighter, which was not the case at all in the F-16 and as history showed, Ed Nash is right, the Super Hornet is a kind of "WANNA BE F-15" plane. Also, while they were not thinking the F-15 as a A-6/A-7 replacement at the time, the design of the FAST PACKS as sensor pods also indicated that they had the RA-5C in mind. On the other hand, the F-14 seemed more suitable as a F-101/F-106 replacement, as a NORAD/ANG interceptor and likewise their MD rivals, they had thought that the F-14 might had a chance as a Bobcat replacing both the USAF F-111A/D/E/F (as they did for the -B model) and the A-6 (logical, since they were made also by Grumman).

[@Vifam7]

The F-15N variant might have sold if it was proposed more as a replacement for the aging Phantoms, Intruders, and Corsairs than as a alternative to the F-14? Perhaps replacing those 3 jets with the F-15N might have freed up some funds to allow the Tomcat to get it's promised F401 engines?

[@stuartwald2395]

Leaving aside some other issues, this would have required (1) that the F-15N from the start would have had strike capabilities such as those now with the F-15E, and (2) in addition it would have been able to carry Harpoons for stand-off naval strikes on Soviet task forces.

[@ronjon7942]

The PeninsulaSrs channel is, frankly, an amazing channel for aviation history and technology. I’ve watched in depth seminars on the Blackbird by pilots and engineers, the YF-23 by test pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg, aircraft and Shuttle by Hoot Gibson, and a whole host of other aerospace subjects and presenters. If any may be put off by the ‘seniors’ in the title, omg, don’t be. There’s an amazing amount of original content by people who were there! Many of whom have since passed, regrettably. Thank you, Mr. Nash on the heads up on the one about the Tomcat, as I’ve not seen it yet. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iaS4dJyudsqNZqM