Making a Naval F-15 to Rival the F-14 and this happened...

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Join this channel to support it: kzbin.info/door/VDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7 One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk ---------------------------- Ask me anything! Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below! forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0 -------------------- Visit the subreddit! www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/

[@maikbanner7552]

i think the flat spin problem could have been partially addressed, if the Vertical Stabilizer had more width between its Leading & Trailing edge, as it would have offered more drag to the spinning motion, at least slowing down the spinning motion, so that the pilot could deploy more power to the opposite right engine & deploy the left rudder. If the aircraft is spinning Left. Of course, the D Version solved the flat spin problem with Digital Flight Control.

[@jaimeduncan6167]

I did knew about all the drama, including the details of the motor stalls and the like. Even so it was so refreshing listening to a youtube channel where the host actuality knows what he is talking about. I believe I will love your channel and learn a lot. Could you do one on the f-18 and the F-14D passing ? thanks

[@Gripen90]

You know the F15A Eagle was actually in the movie, just not in the usual way? When Goose meet up with his wife and son, the son actually has a TransFormers Starscream Decepticon figure in his hand, which was transformed into its vehicle mode aka F15A Eagle !

[@apegues]

StarScream was an F22

[@Gripen90]

@@apegues Top Gun is from 1986. The TransFormers (Generation 1) cartoon series was from 1984. Starscream was an F15 back then along with the seekers Skywarp and Thundercracker.

[@jaimeduncan6167]

@@apegues Really in1986? By that moment the proposals for the 5 generation fighter were going on.

[@5133937]

Lol, I guess we know who’s the millennial and who are the gen X’ers here.

[@josephkugel5099]

@@apegues No, the original G-1 Starscream was an F-15A, the drooling abomination Michael Bay created was based on the F-22.

[@bcadoo]

Actually the f-4 phantom was developed for the navy and the air force adopted it.

[@k.h.1587]

Robert macnamara's doing. Normally the navy and air force will not use the same air superiority and light/medium attack aircraft. Navy requirements are super different, hence the f111b didn't pass navy tests (the reason f14 was developed) and proposed f22 naval version never happened. F35 versions are far more different from a parts perspective than originally planned, hence it got so expensive and really needs to be thought of as 3 separate aircraft

[@patrickweaver1105]

@@k.h.1587 The Navy intentionally killed the carrier version of the F-111. The proposed a thousand impossible changes none of which can be found in the F-14. Things like demanding a side by side cockpit similar to the A-6.

[@fredmdbud]

@@patrickweaver1105 You so realize that the F-111 actually *did* have side-by-side pilot seating? And the F-14 had tandem (front-back) seating?

[@gordonlawrence1448]

@@fredmdbud That is the point he was raising. IE they demanded it for the F-111 but not for the F-14.

[@doc7000]

@@patrickweaver1105 demands and requirements change as philosophy and tactics change over time as new information becomes available, When the F-4 phantom was being evaluated it was competing with an upgraded version of the F-8 crusader. The view was growing that they need good weapons platforms where the pilot just needs to lock on with missiles and shoot down their adversaries, the F-8 crusader was a single seat and the F-4 phantom was a twin seat reducing the work load for the pilot with the aim-7 radar missiles. The F-4 phantom could also carry much more ground ordinance including 11 1,000 pound bombs something that the crusader couldn't do. What does this have to do with the F-111 and F-14? simple when the F-111 was being developed it was being developed in that weapons platform mind set with the notion of higher, faster, further and adding more technology to the planes. However the Vietnam war happened which started to cause a rethink that was largely responsible for how the F-15, F-15, F-18, and F-22 was developed as well as the F-14. They now wanted planes that could dog fight though the F-14 still had a lot of tech added for BVR combat, it was a plane that could land on a carrier while flying at mach 2.35 (was tested to mach 2.5 during development according to test pilot). Need to be able to knock Russian bombers at long range launching anti shipping missiles as well as defend the fleet as the premiere naval air superiority fighter so it needed to be able to hang with the best. The F-111 for the air force has a side by side cockpit, so not sure what you mean that they demanded that the F-111 had a side by side cockpit when it already had one though I udnerstand that the F-111 was being developed for the airforce knowing that it would be used by the navy as well. You have to understand that the Navy maybe felt after the fact that this was a mistake, probably great for the two people to work better together though hurt the visibility for the pilot.

[@Dubanx]

It's important to note that the F14A's engine was designed for a less maneuverable bomber sized aircraft meant to shoot down soviet bombers from long range. The F-111B. That project was scrapped, and the agile F14 was designed to replace it. In order to save money, they put the engine of the scrapped interceptor into the F14A. The F14A's engine wasn't bad, it just wasn't designed to be used in a highly maneuverable fighter. It couldn't handle the high angles of attack the F14 was capable of, leading to the compressor stall issues. The F14B had a new engine which solved this issue.

[@michaelmappin4425]

When the GE engines first made their appearance in the Tomcat they were known as F-14A+ (plus).

[@LupusAries]

Well the Fighter Pilot Podcast had a few australian F-111Crew in an Episode on the Ardvark, and even they didn't like the engine. It caused even them loads of trouble.

[@engineeringawayout]

It was the US Governments fault. The Pratt and Whitney engine was only meant to be a quick to production engine to be replaced after 30 planes. Congress scrapped the funds and did not want to pay for the development and left the P&W as the engine.

[@DanielBrown-sn9op]

Exactly.

[@johndemeritt3460]

@Captain Chaos, amen to that! Moreover, Grumman used the same variable geometry mechanism that the Aardvark. So what was already problematic -- the TF-30 engine -- was made even more difficult with the stress put on the wings by the VG features. The F-14 was a maintenance pig, just like the Aardvark. But let's get to the real heart of the story: the F-15 has a 104:0 kill to loss ratio. The Tomcat never came close to the Eagle in combat effectiveness.

[@Ostsol]

The funny thing is that combat in Top Gun was all about the dogfight. I don't recall BVR engagements (the F-14's greatest strength) ever being a part of the plot.

[@lesgamesmusicales5586]

Well, the school which is at the center of the story is all about dogfight and teaching pilots about the forgotten art of close-range engagement, so it makes sense to me not to talk about BVR engagements

[@k.h.1587]

Bvr and reality does not make for an exciting enough movie

[@Omniseed]

@@lesgamesmusicales5586 plus the F-14 did ok in dogfights anyway, despite being a BVR specialized interceptor

[@mysimpletoon]

@@Omniseed the F-14 was a superb dog fighter. It can still keep up even more modern aircraft like the F-18. In its day, it was without a doubt the most maneuverable aircraft in the sky. Don’t let it’s large size fool you, it’s no slouch

[@gordonlawrence1448]

In reality due to being a lifting body design once an F-14 had fired it's Phoenix missiles (they did not always fly with them) the lift was increased while reducing drag and the power to weight was increased. Of all the fighter types produces I can say that the F-14 was the ONLY fighter post 1960 to beat the UK designs in its class. IE Carrier based fighters. The only reason we replaced the Lightning with the F-4 was because the Tornado was taking too long to develop and the Lightnings were running out of airframe hours. The Lightning service ceiling is still classified but practice interceptions of U-2's flying at 65,000 were common and there are rumours of 75,000. Wiki is wrong on climb performance IE the 0.8 fully armed and fueled power to weight with far less drag than the F-4 but half the climb rate? That's with the Avon 301 not the updated Avon 211R which was substantially more powerful.

[@cannonfodder4376]

A most informative video as always. The F-14 was what the U.S Navy needed, too bad a good engine was simply not available for some time until the GE F110 showed up so late in its life.

[@appa609]

It was... they could have put F-100's in there. F-110 and F-100 are same thrust and size class and are interoperable on falcons and strike eagles.

[@yaronk1069]

@@appa609 The F-100 was also problematic at the beginning. the 110 is stronger and it's not a stand in for the F-100 F-16A/B carry the 100 F-16C/D carry the 110, good day

[@Hypernefelos]

@@yaronk1069 The F-16C/D also carry the F100 (the block x2 variants). Competition between the two led to the F100 improving by quite a lot over the years.

[@yaronk1069]

@@Hypernefelos You are correct, it's block related not pure C/D. and yes the F-100 did improve over the year with the introduction of the DAC (if I recall the correct name for the Digital Control and something :) ).

[@bradhartliep879]

@@yaronk1069 Bullshit. I worked on both the F100PW100 in the F15 A/B, the F100PW200 in the F16 A/B and the F110GE100 installed in the F16 C/D .. I was one of the first 5 Jet Mechs trained on the F110 when it entered AF service - Trained directly by the GE Engineers at Evandale - there was only five of us in the entire AF .. and only 2 of the 5 were trained and experienced on BOTH Engines [AFSC 426X4 F100 Jet Engine Mechanic was a Specialty - ONLY X4s were allowed to perform maintenance on the F100/F15/F16] .. the other three mechanics came from SAC and MAC - B52s. KC135s. C131s .. In the entire Air Force .. The F110 was HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC .. The F100, which at the time was about 10 or 12 years old, was three hundred times more reliable than the F110 .. The F110 was CONSTANTLY seizing in flight .. we were CONSTANTLY having to ground the entire F16 C/D Fleet - probably about once a month for the first two years - pull the F110s, take them into the shop, disassemble them, and then hand file the tips of compressor blades x number of ten thousands of inch .. put the blades back in the engines, reassemble the engine and put them back them back in the airplanes - then a month later do the exact same thing - FOR EVERY ENGINE .. the blades, in flight, were stretching .. and digging into the engine cases - causing the engines to seize and the pilots to have to do a glider landing .. The F110s were NOT, in any way shape or form, any "less problematic" than the F100s .. they were NOT any "stronger" - that's all bullshit - corporate bullshit from the professional bullshitters at GE .. I was originally an F100 Jet Engine Mechanic on F-15s - AFSC 426X4, F15 and F16 SEI .. the Air Force Transferred me from F100/F15 Mechanic to F100 Mechanic on F-16s and then transferred me to F110s on F16s - I HATED the F110 - it was a Piece of Shit - the F100 was three million times easier to work on and MUCH MORE RELIABLE .. the AF refused to put me back on F-15s and they refused to put be back on PW F100s - I told them I refused to spend one more day - [ after 3 years on the F110 ] - working on those POS F110s .. and that if they didn't put me back on F15s - permanently - I would NOT re-enlist - 'cause there was no way in hell I was gonna be responsible for the death of an F-16 Pilot because of GE's and General Dynamic's [ Now Lockheed's ] Incompetence .. The AF refused to put me back on F15s/Pratt F100s and I got out .. and spent 30 Years in the Civilian Aerospace Industry .. Fuck the F110 - It's a Piece Of Shit. I'll take an F100 in an F15 any day over an F110 in an F16 ..

[@rokuth]

There was a mention of how the USN did not have an issue using the F-4 Phantom II that was being used by the USAF. Technically, it is the reverse. The F-4 started off as a Navy aircraft that was adopted by the USAF. The Air Force did not have any problems using Naval aircraft designs as it is easier to de-navalize an aircraft than it is to navalize it.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

That's what I said, did it came across as the reverse? I said that despite USAF adopted the F-4, a NAVY aircraft, the NAVY was not so keen on returning the favor with the F-15N

[@rokuth]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech : I listened to it again, and yes, it did come out like the reverse was being said. Time stamp 9:35 to 9:44... "However, despite what happened with the F-4, a few years before, the Navy was not so keen on using an Air Force aircraft..." The way I heard it sounds like the F-4 was a USAF aircraft that the USN adopted. However, I may have taken it out of context. I am somewhat of a Phantom Phanatic so it kinda rubbed me the wrong way.

[@hawgbreath]

The time I saw an F-14, I was a young airman stationed in the middle of Kansas. I was very surprised to see this new Navy aircraft parked on our flight line but the most amazing aspect was the angular features of the wings, engine air intakes and fuselage. At that time it was the most startling aircraft design ever and it is still incredibly beautiful, standing still or in flight!

[@markman613]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Airforce version was to be the F-110 but someone with a very high pay grade could not keep up with two sets of numbers so they made a change.

[@warhappens-com4489]

My brother worked on an updated Phoenix missile with all new electronics and Nuclear warhead capable. It was just months away from being possible to deploy when the Soviet Union fell apart. He also explain how the Awg-9 worked with small carrier AWACS and was capable of coordinating an attack on upto 24 targets at one time. Of course this would take 4+ F-14... Anyway in its role as long range fleet defense, it was beautiful.

[@frogdude21XXX]

The navy's version of the AWACS is the E-2C Hawkeye.

[@MrJest2]

Yeah; there was nothing quite like the Phoenix, and it was quite advanced for it's era. A huge beast for air-to-air, too, since it had to carry along quite a bit of fuel to give it that incredible range. But that was another strike against the F-15 platform; it was never meant to carry something that sized.

[@sohrabroozbahani4700]

F14 was a rockstar... it was expensive, hard to work with, high maintenance... but when put on the stage and into it's element, nothing out there could ever touch it, legendary aircraft...

[@JZ909]

Except when the Phoenixes fell off it it like so many million dollar rocks.

[@DirtyMardi]

Phoenix was it’s strenght, but it wasn’t the fastest or the most maneuverable plane in the sky. F-15, 16 and 18 were better up close and after amraams, also from afar. :)

[@emknight84]

@@DirtyMardi ahhh the F 14 was incredibly maneuverable. The F 14 once it got the new engine upgrade had the power to really hold its own against the eagle.

[@taylorc2542]

The F-14 was more telegenic than anything else, and thus overrated in the eyes of the public.

[@emknight84]

@@taylorc2542 the F-14 was incredibly effective for its time. You should remember that it's old enough that it served in the tail end of Vietnam

[@BlitzvogelMobius]

Quite a bit of study was done on a navalized F-16 variant as well, though it must be mentioned the US Navy did procure a few specialized F-16Ns as Top Gun aggressors.

[@gups4963]

From my understanding the single engine in the f-16 was what ended that. Though a few decades later they get the F-35

[@BlitzvogelMobius]

@@gups4963 Engine-out redundancy is a big Navy thing for sure, though there are of course plenty historical Navy jets that were single engine equipped. All the navalization of the F-16 for carrier suitability would've added considerable weight leaving less margin for the TW ratio. The F110 and F100-PW-229 were not available at the time IIRC so TW ratio would've suffered poorly.

[@arohk1579]

I would have given anything to be in a Tomcat for a launch and recovery on a carrier :). It is one of my favorite fighter's.

[@DanielBrown-sn9op]

There would be a long line

[@fazole]

I really enjoyed your VERY professional and comprehensive presentation! I always thought the cost of the F-14 was much higher due to the complexity of the variable sweep wings, not it's weapon systems. In the end, though, maintenance costs were cited as the US Navy's decision to retire it.

[@tinkerjeeppublications9823]

I'd think the Titanium wing hinge assemblies were indeed spendy but required pieces. The AWG9 - AIM54 system and a second cockpit for the RIO were also spendy but made the Cat what it was. They were pushed into production with the TF30 comp stalls known and the TF30s were due to be replaced at some point down the road with better engines. Irony abounds since they pretty much just extended the length of the GE F100 engines (equipped in the Eagles) and bolted them into the Cat. They achieved supercruise with them the airframe and engine were so compatible. Super cruise was non Afterburner cruise velocity above mach 1. However, back in the early 1970s the PW TF30 was the only After Burning Turbo Fan of the time the Cats took over from the F-4. F-4s were not AB. The F-14 was in dev and entered service about two years ahead of the Eagle. So the F14's primary roll was as a long range bomber interceptor, a huge concern back then, and not so much for turn and burn dogfights with Migs. Unfortunately Rules Of Engagement essentially neutered the F-14's advantage of the AIM54 and AWG9 because ROE restricted engagements to bogey aircraft with negative IFF response and positive visual ID...ans also having witnessing a hostile act...generally. ROE changed from time to time. In some cases it was fire if fired upon, in other scenarios it was witnessing a hostile act. But without the AWG9...there was no sniping bogeys at 100NM plus. Combat range was reduced to about 30-40 miles with the aid of the TVSU and later the thermal version in the twin chin pods. These could be slaved to the AWG9. So, with only Visual Range engagements, no Navy Cat ever used a Phoenix in combat. But apparently Iran did. Thank you politics. Imagine if Iranian F-14s would have jumped Navy Tomcats in the 1970s and 80s...you think the Iranian Cat pilots would have waited to fire on the Navy Cats until they they were in visual range? Hell no. They would have locked em up with their AWG9s at 100 miles and pickled a couple AIM54s at the Navy Cats way Beyond Visual Range.

[@franklinlewis6059]

Was a mech for many years on the F-14. Learned more about the bird and,the why she came to be than I ever did during my active years.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

This is a GREAT honor. Thank you!

[@franklinlewis6059]

P.S. was "IN" the movie TOP GUN! Worked on ejection seats & other systems (canopies),I can guarantee Goose could never had been killed the way the movie shows.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Ward Carroll has a very informative video on his YT channel about Goose's death.

[@HornetVF103]

The F-15N would not have replaced the F-14 but would have been the selected platform for the Navy. When the F-111 originally designed by the Contractor to be the replacement for the F-4, demonstrated terrible fighter characteristics and it was clear General Dynamics could never make the F-111 meet Navy requirements. Both McDonnell Douglas and Grumman proposed a solution. Keep in mind that the F-15 was not capable of using the Phoenix missile. The F-15N would have to have folding wing (weight added), a sturdier undercarriage for carrier ops (weight added) and would need to be upgraded with the AWG-9 radar to be capable of firing the Phoenix missile (weight added). The conclusion was the extra 10,000lbs of weight would have negated any advantage the Eagle had in the area of thrust to weight and dog-fighter abilities to be made Navy ready. The rest in history and Grumman was awarded the contract. Personally, the F-14B and D are more than capable of defeating an Eagle in a dog-fight if the Tomcat can get the Eagle into a low altitude rate fight.

[@artnull13]

Shame would have liked to see the F-15N Seagull

[@epicspaces9434]

the f 15 would smoke any f14 variant, in 5 secs

[@epicspaces9434]

@@artnull13 me too

[@ghostrider1827]

@@epicspaces9434 right idiot. If Cmdr Snodgrass was still around he would truly tell you, you are emphatically wrong.

[@szlash280z]

They wouldn't have needed to put the shittier AWG-9 in the F-15. The APG-63 is programmable and they could have easily added the capability.

[@2ZZGE100]

A better suggestion about Goose staying alive, the TF-030 was supposed to be a temporary engine for the F-14A and it was going to be replaced quickly with the new fighter engine (P&W 404 engine developed specifically for the F-14 with 60,000+ lbsf of thrust that was installed in F-14 prototype number 7 and was tested in 1973 with a better than 1:1 combat thrust to weight ratio), but congress did not want to approve the cost for the new engines instead of the TF-030 engines so Congress asked to live with the TF-030 engines (until 1984 when the GE-F110 engines were approved to be replaced in the F-14s). Therefore, the F-14s used in 'Top Gun' would have been either the P&W-404 engine powered F-14A+ or the real F-14-A+ with the GE-F110 engines that were installed in the F-14B (1989) and the F-14D (1993). Nothing else could have looked as good in Top Gun as the F-14 did. Period.

[@leonswan6733]

There was also another engine option for the F-111B and the F-14A back in the late 1960s. The Allison TF-41 which was based on the Rolls-Royce Spey engines used in the RAF FGR1 Phantoms. If fully developed and tested for the YF-14 prototype may have been a better engine option. The non-afterburning models of the Allison TF-41 was used in the USAF A-7 Corsair 2 ACFTs but had some accessory gearbox issues later down the road.

[@2ZZGE100]

@@leonswan6733 Good point.

[@Nghilifa]

Goose died because he forgot the boldface. You were supposed to jettison the canopy FIRST, THEN eject. Goose panicked, forgot the boldface and thus got himself killed. It was his own fault more or less.

[@2ZZGE100]

@@Nghilifa Yes, that is true.

[@65strad]

Not widely known was the amazing minimum turning radius of this big bad interceptor/fighter. At mach 2, the Tomcat pulled 7.5 G's an incredible capability, particularly considering its size. Totally BAD ASS!

[@andreabindolini7452]

F-15 can pull 9 G's. Generally speaking, the Tomcat is revered and idolatred and was indeed a incredible machine, especially in BVR engagements. When comes to dogfight, the F-15 could outperform it every day. Different machines for different scenarios.

[@Dra741]

Engineers were absolutely incredible when they designed this thing with the hooks and all of this it's an amazing thing

[@take5th]

You should cover the wing box in the f-14. Full titanium, electron beam welded. Some interesting history for structure nerds. Also part of design for naval ops.

[@ronniefarnsworth6465]

So many Do Not understand how much harder it is to make a successful Naval aircraft. Most everything has to be stronger to make the aircraft last and much or than just landing gear, wheels & tires and putting in an arrestor hook !! The airframe, wings, tail etc all must be strengthened, rust corrosion navalized everywhere that it's needed, cockpit avionics and radar must be able to stand up the many carrier take offs and landings !! Naval aircraft are heavier for these reasons. Semper Fi

[@kwatt-engineer796]

Thank you for this video, The comparative history of these two standout planes is priceless. It's like a graduate level course in the logical progression of aircraft development!

[@animapulcra9205]

Best takeaway in this episode: "...teamed up with some elements in the US Congress..." 😂😂😂

[@gups4963]

As American citizens run off hiding their wallets

[@richardlahan7068]

The Navy was also looking into navalizing the F-16 for use as a Navy fighter in the late 80s.

[@petesheppard1709]

Interesting video! I followed the drama through my teens. To see how much navalizing changes an aircraft, look at how much McDonnell-Douglas modified the Northrop YF-17 to create the F/A-18; in fact, it's arguably a completely new design! That would be a great topic for a video!

[@oddy1637]

What a great channel. No bull****, straight to the real point!

[@Ni999]

Great job, time to watch your Phoenix assessment - thanks, Otis!

[@sean70729]

When I was a kid I bought The great book of modern warplanes no one could believe I spent $150 at Waldenbooks and I subscribed to International combat arms.

[@hotchihuahua1546]

Because of the new release my interest on these two plans came back . Thanks for sharing your knowledge . I learned a lot !

[@jackdyson5670]

Absolutely brilliant video - so addictive to watch. I have watched several and everytime you explain everything clearly with a lot of attention to scientific detail with balanced arguments conclusions. The one on EWS and the inverse problem of radar FOF identification was a particular masterpiece for example. You might consider turning these into an "airpower" encyclopedia one day. Thanks a lot for all the hard work - much appreciated.

[@TK421-53]

Ironic if you realize that the F-14 was ultimately replaced with the F/A-18, without the long range intercept bomber capability. Long range bombers and cruise missiles are still a realistic anti-carrier weapon (not the mention the out of context Hypersonic and ballistic carrier killing missiles).

[@kathrynck]

It's probably worth pointing out that the F-14 with it's TF-30 engines is still considerably more heavy, and had 9,000 lbs less thrust, than the F-15(N-PHX) proposal. The F-15(N-PHX) even with it's modifications & weight gain, would have had a combat T:W ratio of 1.12, roughly double that of a similarly loaded F-14. I mean, with the TF-30's, an F-14 had a T:W ratio of like 0.6, to say the F-14 was grossly underpowered for most of it's service life is a gross understatement. F-15's on the other hand can & have engaged in dogfighting without bothering to drop 12,000 lbs worth of bomb load, because there was no need to ditch the bombs (depending on the type of opposing aircraft obviously). Movies and games like DCS don't really portray it, but an F-15 with 10,000 lbs extra weight would still spank an F-14 in a dogfight. Also, the F-15(N-PHX) was proposed by McD-D AND Hughes, not just McD-D, and was intended to use a modified version of the APG-63 to target & utilize the AIM-54's (NOT the AWG-9). This would save weight, while also allowing for a "drastic" improvement in reliability & maintenance. The AWG-9 has a theoretically greater range than the APG-63 (just based on raw power), but the APG-63 has considerably greater resolution, giving it an effectively similar useful range. And for land-attack, the APG-63 had significantly greater utility. Finding a way to allow the navy to get rid of the AWG-9 radar was a key selling point of all of the F-15N proposals. The AWG-9 maintenance calls for placing a padded blanket under the nose cone before opening it, to catch all the parts which fall off the radar when the F-14 makes a carrier landing. Often the parts are later deemed re-usable. But the turnaround time & maintenance for an F-14 would be more than twice what a F-15(N-PHX) would require. And the P&W F100 engines of the time were noticeably more reliable than the TF-30's. The F-15 didn't need to find space for the operational modifications. It was designed with excess empty internal space from the start, intended for future upgrades and a possible naval version. Also, the F-15's hardpoint configuration was already designed with a possible naval variant in mind. Notice the lack of outer-wing hardpoints? One of the reasons the F-15 can actually keep a grip on heavy ordinance under hard-G maneuvering is because you need that kind of hardpoint grip to do carrier landings with ordinance. Converting an F-15 for naval use wasn't a radical re-imagining of the aircraft, the groundwork for that possibility was planned into the original F-15 design. Although it wasn't burdened with the extra weight with no benefit to the USAF, any significant barrier to a naval conversion was pre-purged from the F-15A. The cost of a F-15(N-PHX) likely would have risen to be fairly similar to an F-14, perhaps a bit less. But it would be a considerably more robust platform, with lower maintenance, and much higher operational readiness, not to mention greater payload capacity & range, and much greater land attack potential. Side note: the F-15 STOL/MTD could be considered a FORTH flirtation with the USNavy, though no official proposal was made. And when the Navy was interested in the F-17 Cobra, they wanted McD-D to "F-15-ify it", and use their expertise to 'navalize' it (since Northrup didn't really have experience with that). The main reason the F-15(N-PHX) wasn't adopted was simply this: The Navy had already bought a lot of F-14's, and didn't want to start over. For both financial and face-saving reasons. An already owned plane is always cheaper than a new plane. Sticking with the F-14 platform didn't become "the best call" (as apposed to just the cheaper option) until it was redesigned with P&W F110 engines (and the solid state APG-71 radar) in the 1990's, shortly before the planes were decommissioned. The F-14D was a beast, and really the first time the F-14 actually lived up to it's popularity. Similar to how the F-16 didn't really achieve the goal of being a genuinely tempting option until around block 50 (for mainly the same reasons). Bear in mind that I think the F-14 is aesthetically just gorgeous. And an engineering marvel. And I consider it to be the first 4th gen fighter aircraft. I don't hate the F-14 at all. But for about 20 years, the F-15 had an amazing ability to make everything else look bad.

[@szlash280z]

The F-15 is the world's finest air to air killing machine!

[@kathrynck]

@@szlash280z As much as I like it, I'm going to go with "was" rather than "is". Though it's far from obsolete. Just want to say also, that even though my personal income is affected by sales of the F-18E/F/G, I think the F-14D (specifically the D), finally got the F-14 design "right", and was a monstrously capable platform. I think if the Navy knew that a naval F-22 was never going to materialize, and that the AIM-260 would take decades to create due to funding BS, they probably would have opted for the F-14D over the super hornet, and it would have been a fantastic choice.

[@tinman3586]

The F14C was supposed to be an Air Force interceptor variant. That's why it went from F14A, F14B, and then straight to F14D.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

There was also an E on the drawing board with way more fuel efficient and slightly more powerful engines. If what I remember is correct it was 20% less fuel for a given thrust and 5% more power. It was marginally lighter too but I cant remember how much.

[@geodkyt]

And an F-14 would have been a good choice for a NORAD specific interceptor, with the AIM-54, to kill Bears as far away from their targets as possible. Of course, the USAF would have been served just fine in that case by simply buying from the same production line the Navy was rather than spending a lot of money on a variant model, given the low numbers that would have been needed for the mission (pure continental air defense).

[@josephkugel5099]

Not sure that is correct, as far as i know the F-14C was an avionics test bed meant to follow the engine upgraded F-14B as would be a natural progression, its also relevant to note that the Air Force had the F-15 Eagle and had no interest in purchasing Tomcats, The F-14C was just pissed away and the F-14B was a wasted letter designation, if all fairness the Tomcat line REALLY looks like this, (F-14A), (F-14A+), and then (F-14B), This is what we really got if you use the letter designations properly and not the BS way the DOD did, Hell every other gen 4 fighter got fully fleshed out A, B, C, D, E, F, versions and then even specialized G & EX versions so this should show you just how bad the Tomcat was neglected.

[@Kirby33099]

@@josephkugel5099 neglected yet could still knock the brakes off of just about anything that came at it. Also don't forget the F-14D

[@josephkugel5099]

@@Kirby33099 Agreed the F-14D was a massive step in the right direction but as i stated above in all fairness the F14D was really the F-14B and had they gone forward with the F-14E or Tomcat 21 program we would have gotten a true world beating Tomcat that would have been the unquestionable king of the Gen 4 mountain.

[@eljcd]

Great video! What a nostalgic trip! I burned out my VHS tape of that movie! 4:36 Question here: the Naval Rafale hasn't folding wings!?

[@tyrantfox7801]

It doesn't

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

And the reason why has never officially been stated. At least I never found anything.

[@VuLamDang]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech I don't think any delta ever have a folding wing. Cue A-4. The reason I read somewhere is that they are quite small already

[@saltyseadawg4768]

@@VuLamDang , the horizontal stabilisers on an F-14 are roughly about the same size as the A-4’s wing.

[@wwclay86]

@@VuLamDang f-6 skyray had folding wings...

[@lt.danslegs9737]

Another great video!

[@andrewtaylor940]

The F-15N was quickly working out to be the same price or slightly more expensive than the F-14. The majority of the F-14's engine issues were solved with the F-14B and D models. The F-14 and F-15 were both designed to use the same Engines. The P&W F100's/(The Navalized version was the F400). It's just the F-14 made it into production and operation first and got to experience more of the teething problems. The initial A models also were delivered with the smaller less powerful TF30 used on the F-111. Which were grossly underpowered. These are the most famous compressor stall versions. A lot is made somehow connecting the real life compressor stall issue on the F-14, with the infamous Flat spin depicted in Top Gun. They are not the same thing. I don't know that you could actually get an F-14 into a flat spin like that? The Compressor Stall was an issue when the plane was flying low and slow, most often when coming in for carrier landing. Because of the nature of the F-14's lifting body, and the wide separation of the two engines, if you make a sharp hard rudder flat turn when you are low and slow, you can position the plane such that the nose and body of the aircraft is blocking and disrupting airflow into the trailing side intake. Causing a compressor stall. This is most often seen in Carrier landing, when you are already flying a little sideways. You have to be careful you don't stall the Port engine. Especially on a wave off or go around. You need to do an aileron turn left. Not a hard rudder turn. This same problem exists in pretty much any rear engined commercial airliners, from the Cessna Citation up to the MD-80. Dealing with it is just a matter of learning how to properly fly your aircraft. (The blade failures were an entirely different issue). The design work for the F-15N did lead to the vastly improved 2 seat F-15E Strike Eagle. Which was the 2 seat version with the more advanced long range pheonix missiles and sensor suites. Just without the navalized airframe.

[@fahadkelantan]

Hey Millenium. Would you please do a video on the Northrop F18L? It's a shame it wasn't adopted.

[@2511_blender]

Millennium 7:"Mentions F14" Top Gun Fans:"Danger Zone intensified"

[@vickydroid]

Bravo, really intriguing answers loads of questions and even points to why we don't have Sea Raptors and even why India's proposed navalised version of the AMCA may be a little too ambitious.

[@bret9741]

Absolutely one of the best channels covering past aviation, current and future aviation topics. Thank you for another informative documentary. I believe the F-14 was the correct platform. Sadly, it was terminated just when engines, avionics, data, and as importantly philosophy within the Navy was changing. The proposed The last "Tomcat" variant was the ASF-14 (Advanced Strike Fighter-14), Grumman's proposed concept for the NATF. I think that proposal would have made the Tomcat substantially more capable than the F-15. More importantly, had the Navy been given this plate form, it would be a platform still viable in today’s threat environment. So that leaves us with the F-35, a great replacement for the F-18 but still not a good replacement for the F-14.

[@Bellthorian]

How did the ASF-14 compare to the Tomcat 21? I agree the F-14 airframe never realized its potential due to lack of funding.

[@Asghaad]

F-14 was overpriced and also too big and heavy to be economically viable. As soon as enemy missile range and combat tactics evolved away from big heavy bomber swarms the F-14 lost its purpose and could no longer be held up by the "only one capable of doing the job" excuse. its awesome aircraft, but its sheer size and weight means a lot of extra costs on top of the higher purchase cost. F-18 just makes more sense, it can do whatever TomCat would have to do, is cheaper, lighter, smaller, way less maintenance intensive and doesnt have inherent flaws of the F-14 (like going into unrecoverable flat spin if one of the engines loses thrust ...)

[@geeussery8849]

Another "problem" with the original engines for the F-14 was the fuel consumption. Thirsty beast!

[@brianhaygood183]

Your audio and speech sounds much better than it did a few months ago. Really good now. Good job!

[@semco72057]

The F-14 Tomcat was a very good airplane and got the job done, but it cost so much in maintenance upkeep which finally doomed it. The F-15 Strike Eagle turned out to be such a good airplane until the Air Force decided to buy more of them to replace the C and D models.

[@S.P.A.R.K.Y.]

True, however just about everything else was upgraded, more to the F-14 myth than just maintainance cost.

[@occamsrayzor]

Thank you for this extremely concise and illuminating video. Both the F-14 and F-15 were excellent purpose built aircraft, but neither of them could properly supplant the other. As far as I can see, the only reason for trying is for the military-industrial complex to make more money.

[@ELMS]

First time I’ve watched your videos. Very good job. Thanks!

[@criticalevent]

If Top Gun had featured the F-15 and therefore not had a flat spin scene as part of the plot, it's possible that stunt pilot Art Scholl would still be alive today, although he'd be 89 now.

[@OFallons]

They should of had the thought to put the updated F15 engine into the F14 . I remember the F14 very well, while in the Navy, and remember the engines being upgraded fleet wide. I just loved that aircraft. I fully remember it doing the shortest full burner take off roll I had ever seen, then rotate vertical going outa sight! Just truly awesome to constantly be see, feel, and be there. Just awesome, saddened me greatly to see it retired, bad thinking on the Navy’s part!

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

The B to D models have better engines.

[@v8packard]

The engine for the original F-14B was the F-401, which shared the core of the F-100 used in the F-15, and F-16. Those engines had troubles, too. Cost overuns hit the F-14, long story, and political appointees killed the F-401 development, along with avionics improvements, VTAS helmet mounted sights, and so on. The Airforce stayed with the F-100, problems were resolved, and that engine has had a long career. Eventually, the F-110 engine came along, partly to help with F-100/F-16 production issues and costs. That gave the Tomcat the kind of thrust and reliability it's creators intended on from the start.

[@Dra741]

I was always fascinated with the landing gear on the carrier aircraft it has to be incredible I wish I could have that kind of landing gear on my car

[@TheDalhuck]

It's pretty beefy. A non-naval aircraft landing gear looks like it's made from toothpicks in comparison.

[@szymonsech937]

Fantastic technical explanation! Bravo!

[@thefrecklepuny]

Notable naval aircraft without folding wings are the A-4 Skyhawk, AV-8B Harrier II, Sea Harrier, F-35B Lightning II and Rafale. I guess the A-4 and Harrier family were small enough to get away with not needing a folding wing. Dassault and the Aeoronavale saw a folding wing as an unnecessary complication for the Rafale and tolerate the increased space taken up as a result from what I have read.

[@szlash280z]

The Skyhawk is TINY! and it can still carry more ordnance than a B17 could!

[@richarddobreny6664]

very very good analysis of the 14 versus the 15. I had also heard that the F14 was still faster with the TF30’s than the GE 101 engines of the D model( if i recall the GE engine designation correctly)

[@niekbeentjes8849]

The Phoenix missile was so far ahead its time its only been surpassed recently. But the F14 is the F22 of its day ... way to expensive.

[@josephkugel5099]

That was just a myth, i would argue that the Hornet was far more expensive overall when you consider the fact that it was the newest gen 4 fighter we had and was then completely ground up rebuilt into an entirely new plane in the Super Hornet version, no way that cost less than upgrading the Tomcat NO EFFING WAY!!!!!!!!!

[@niekbeentjes8849]

@@josephkugel5099 Its more about operating cost. Cost per flight hour is 50% down on the Hornet. It saves around 20K per hour x a fleet of 600 = 12M per flight hour of the total fleet.

[@josephkugel5099]

@@niekbeentjes8849 And what were the operating costs of the F-14E or Tomcat 21 as it was stupidly called by Grumman??????? you don't know because those numbers don't exist since that version of the Tomcat was never built even as a prototype so to compare an old beat to shit F-14A against a complete ground up totally rebuilt and brand spanking new just off the line F-18E/F Super Hornet is not even remotely fair and yet everyone keeps doing it when they try and justify the MASSIVE mistake the DOD made choosing the Hornet over the Cat.

[@CrotchRocket78]

F35 was way too expensive.

[@teddy.d174]

You should do a video about the YF-17 vs an F-16 naval variant.

[@fredmdbud]

All the modifications that would have been required to adapt the F-15 to carrier operations would have made the plane too heavy and reduced its performance. In the end, both Air Force and Navy got the planes they wanted and needed - "jack of all trades, master of none". But the "Sea Eagle" did create the Navy Fighter Study Group IV, which resulted in the F/A-18A.

[@CrotchRocket78]

F18s weigh too much and are underpowered. Its the cost of making a plane that can handle carrier life. There was even a navalized raptor plan.

[@williammagoffin9324]

@@CrotchRocket78 There was also a navalized F-16 project.

[@CrotchRocket78]

@@williammagoffin9324 thats cool, didnt know. Im figuring they didnt because no twin engines

[@williammagoffin9324]

@@CrotchRocket78 The Navy still ran single engine planes back then like the A-4, A-7, and F-8. Of course they run them now too in the F-35.

[@CrotchRocket78]

@@williammagoffin9324 they did and they on numerous occasions stated they prefer to have twin engine planes.

[@bastadimasta]

This reminds of an advertisement where the land speed record was filmed by a BMW.

[@stavrospartheniou8563]

This must be the most serious and well balanced channel I've come across on these subjects, one free of bias and propaganda from either side. My congratulations sir. I was wondering if you have any knowledge on the 2012 incident regarding the shooting down of an Iranian F-14 by a drone (?). The particulars of the incident circulating sound bizarre to say the least. If you have come across any clarification or could share something of what actually took place there I would very much appreciate it. Thank you.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Sorry, no info I'm afraid

[@stavrospartheniou8563]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Thank you for your response. It is a peculiar subject.

[@monteiro5306]

Great video. Greetings from Brazil.

[@andrejmucic5003]

Meg Ryan crying changed my life!

[@sgtjameslindsey2493]

The Final Coundown also had some great F-14 slow flying maneuvers against a couple T6 Texans painted up to look like Japanese Mitsubishi Zero's

[@jhill4874]

People get all PO'd about various aircraft, but usually it has to do with the engines. One of the most recent aircraft handicapped by its engines is the J-20.

[@marcguidry5744]

This is why some pilots call landing on a carrier, a controlled crash.

[@vincesammut4888]

Very interesting video. However you failed to mention one very important difference in the design of the two aircraft. While the F14, like its parent the F111, had a variable wing design to facilitate takeoff and landings on an aircraft carrier, the F15 had a fixed wing design. This would have been a serious problem for the F15 given its size and weight. Redesigning the wings would have been much too expensive.

[@craigywaigy4703]

Your correct, and what would have been the result of this - basically a carrier borne MIG25(which the F15 was specifically designed to compete against)!! Too big in all ways! Always loved the F14, and the F111!

[@MichaelJohnson-fe8tm]

Aluminum doesn't rust. Rust is iron oxide. Aluminum chloride is corrosion.

[@RobertWilliams-us4kw]

Great and informative video thanks. Is there any chance you could complement your F-14 Tomcat videos by doing a video which covers the Pratt & Whitney F401 turbofan, which was supposed to be the definitive engine for the F-14B, the GE TF-30 only supposed to be an interim engine on the F-14A.... Regards

[@garyhilson7220]

You sound like one of my old Aeronautical Engineering Professors.

[@PW060284]

I heard that the Gripen Maritime version, if it ever comes out, does not need folding wings

[@brinx8634]

It has a 27ft wingspan....about the same as Douglas A-4, which did not have folding wings.

[@traviswilliam1180]

Nice work.

[@iriquiosgunship]

Good information 👍

[@johnpaulbacon8320]

Awesome video

[@gordonlawrence1448]

APG-9 nuffink. You cant beat the "Blue Circle" Radar from the early Tornado.

[@southerncross86]

Very intrresting and factual

[@bennybenitez2461]

Yup I tended to Tomcats from 1983 to 1986 with VF-32 whilst based at NAS Oceana. We the Gypsy Swordsmen cruised onboard USS Independence CV-62 / CAG-6. The AWG-9 was very finicky and very rare did we have an F-14 with All AIM-54 stations working with good RF.

[@josephkugel5099]

Well the AWG-9 was developed in the 60s and was never properly upgraded until the 90s and only then in the small number of F-14Ds that were ever made so it makes sense that they gave you so much trouble, i wouldn't blame the Tomcat its not its fault they wasted all there money on trying to make the Hornet relevant.

[@harleyhexxe9806]

Just for clarity, Aircraft carrier landings are by both aviation and physics definitions, controlled crashes. That is exactly how landings are done. The approach is made at 180 knots, slowing to 140 knots as the aircraft begins to pass over the edge of the flight deck, at an altitude of 6 feet over the deck. The LSO will signal the pilot, who will then completely cut his power for one second, then apply full power again, ( in the event of missing the cables with the hook ), This will cause the aircraft to drop onto the steel deck, and hook a cable. The preferred cable hook of all carrier pilots is the #2 cable which is considered the textbook landing, #3 is also considered a safe and acceptable landing, (given the forward momentum of the aircraft). This is the reason the airframe and landing gear have to be more robust for Naval Air.

[@gort8203]

Everybody knows naval aircraft require robust gear to cope with the stresses of carrier operations. But just for clarity, by aviation definitions a landing is not a crash. A landing is the normal conclusion of a flight after which the aircraft can taxi back to be prepared for another flight. Lack of flare and resultant higher sink rate at touchdown does not make a landing a crash. A crash is when an aircraft makes unplanned and abnormal contact with the surface with significant damage and potential injury or loss of life. BTW, in modern angled deck carrier operations the pilot does not normally cut the engines to drop into the wires. They fly power on and aim to maintain glidepath to touchdown.

[@harleyhexxe9806]

@@gort8203 Don't take my word for it, by all means inquire from any Naval Aviator about the term I used.

[@gort8203]

@@harleyhexxe9806 I've known many carrier qualified pilots, and a normal recovery was always referred to as a carrier landing or a trap, never a crash.

[@jhill4874]

$28 million vs $38 million. Hmm. About 1/3 of the way through. Me thinks navalizing the F-15 will raise that $28 million to closer to $38 million.

[@kodato92]

The backdraw of the f14 was the Iran, thats why the F-18 came so fast to replace the F-14

[@CallsignEskimo-l3o]

I think you got it the wrong way around with the Phantom. The F-4 was originally a naval aircraft that proved so successful that it was adopted by the USAF, not the other way around.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

that is what I meant, but probably it wasn.t phrased correctly. you are not the first telling me.

[@maximgun3833]

It wasn't really adopted by the USAF because it was successful but rather because McNamara wanted to reduce cost concerns by having the USAF and USN use the same fighter. The problem is that both have different requirements.

[@rogersmith3909]

Great vid thank you.

[@KarthikSoun]

But the N Tejas is more suited for the US navy trainer program compared with GRIPEN.

[@pilot3016]

For what its worth.. The Navy (?) Guys say..if you are in a dog fight, and you are not in a F-18...you loose.

[@josephkugel5099]

That's funny, not even remotely true but still funny.

[@pilot3016]

@@josephkugel5099 Yeah... They must have done s voice over on the pilot who said it.

[@josephkugel5099]

@@pilot3016 I didn't mean the pilot never said it i meant the pilot was dead wrong.

[@pilot3016]

@@josephkugel5099 understood..got it. You just think a tank in the sky can kill something more agile?

[@josephkugel5099]

@@pilot3016 So then you think that all the training Tomcat pilots receive regarding ACM is useless and as soon as ANY other fighter on planet Earth gets anywhere within spitting range of the Tomcat both pilots should just punch out and walk home right??? You do know that small and nimble is not always the deciding factor in a dog fight don't you????

[@eljcd]

Eh, if we are gonna shoot crap to a movie, let's begin pointing out that all engagements are dogfights, so the reason d'tre of the F 14, nominally shooting Phoenix from 100 miles away, never happens..

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Actually, Iran got many long range kils.

[@eljcd]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Oh? Top Gun is a story about Iranian Navy aviators? Funny, I missed that...;)))

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@eljcd ....... No...... Iran is the only other user of the F-14. They used them in the Iran-Iraq war. Some still in use.

[@Native_love]

3:10 The best moment in KZbin history! Lol!

[@davidrobinson7112]

We have really great aircraft and the pilots cannot be compared to any others. God bless our air warriors...

[@dlm808101]

during the late 80's and early 90's the USNAVY adopted the F-16 for their top gun training and they designated it the F-16N

[@CrotchRocket78]

It was a total hotrod too. A crazy high supercruise and yurned and burned like crazy. It was a time where top gun pilots completely dominated at all points of the school.

[@mike28003]

But it still can't operate from a carrier

[@CrotchRocket78]

@@mike28003 that wasnt the point though, they wanted a fight that put new pilots at a complete disadvantage to make them better.

[@bobthompson4319]

The f-14 can carry 6 Phoenix missiles but only land with 4 so they usually only had 4 of them so they didn't have to dump them.

[@v8packard]

Actually, the F-14 could trap on a carrier with 6 Phoenix, but it would be at minimal fuel for one, barely 2, passes. Operationally, a full AIM-54 loadout was never really needed (thankfully), so it was a moot point.

[@zofe]

F-14 reliability was abysmall due to landing with wide-spread swing-wings. It also had a low ceiling of 15km, low-acceleration due to a huge cross-section, and little climb-rate due to small wing-area. Swing-wing are always poor in dog-fights. Thus the bubble-canopy doesn't really matter here. Namely, once it lost some speed and altitude - it became a sitting duck. The original radar and missile were also reliability disasters due to the early stage of electronics - perhaps Z80 processors in bundles under 7G and carrier crash-landings. F-4F/J/G (with droops) was the best option, with PW1120 motors - maximizing the anti Mig-25 parameters: altitude, speed, acceleration vs. all competitors, the cheapest and with plenty of room for electronics, fuel, coolant and missiles. Range: lenghten the body and increase the tail surfaces. F-14 was a mistake-jet like the F-18 with its mild wing-sweep angle limiting its dogfight capability. The Su-33 and the Rafale-M are the right prototypes for naval aviation.

[@trespire]

Great to see all those Dassault Rafals inside what must be the Franch aircraft carrier @4:35

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

It is really narrow, I was surprised when I saw it.

[@trespire]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Well, the French don't eat as much as their US counterparts :-)

[@robertmcmath910]

The USAF with F-15 squadrons on/near oceans have 4 aircraft in each squadron that have tailhooks to support joint operations to include launching off aircraft carriers....never know when you'll need to take a pitstop on a carrier after a dog fight.

[@szlash280z]

are you asking a question? or proposing a theoretical idea? because all F-15s have a tailhook but none of the operational ones were ever produced to launch or land on carriers.

[@williammagoffin9324]

That's not true, the system on the F-15, F-16 and F-22 can't work with the arrestor gear on a carrier because the tailhooks aren't the correct length. The USAF tailhooks are to stop at the end of a runway in an emergency, like if they abort a take off. This system also slows the plane down a lot slower than on a carrier, if you snagged a carrier wire with an F-15's hook bad things would happen.

[@leonswan6733]

There was also another engine option for the F-111B and the F-14A back in the late 1960s. The Allison TF-41 which was based on the Rolls-Royce Spey engines used in the RAF FGR1 Phantoms. If full developed and tested for the YF-14 prototype may have been a better engine option. The non-afterburning models of the Allison TF-41 was used in the USAF A-7 Corsair 2 ACFTs but had some accessory gearbox issues later down the road.

[@leonswan6733]

@Common Sense Realist Do you think the Allison TF-41 had better throttle response than the RR Spey? You can look at both engines and see it is not a exact copy but a re-design which may have better performance than what it was based on. The USAF and in lower models of the USN did use then non-afterburning Allison TF-41 variant on the A-7 corsair 2. Early model USN A-7s used non AB P&W TF-30s.

[@leonswan6733]

@Common Sense Realist OK Good input, A+. Thanks

[@thebajabobusa]

As I recall the TF-30 was the engine of necessity not the engine of choice. The pairing was forced as the Navy needed to get the F-14 to the fleet ASAP. A shame, as the F-100 engine was only a year or so away. Earlier the TF-30 powered the F-111 which resulted in a under powered aircraft. Similar problem for the F-14. To bad, the F-100 and later the GE F-101 would have really have extended the station keeping duration of the F-14. And other performance characteristics of course.

[@colinl2908]

I can't imagine the single seat n-phx version doing well with pilot workload?

[@robinblankenship9234]

Outstanding commentary.

[@etherjoe505]

The Navy wanted a platform for the Phoenix missile for long range fleet defense. F-15 isn't big enough.

[@epicspaces9434]

shame we need to see the f15 n at least give it try

[@szlash280z]

you clearly don't know how big the F-15 is 🤣

[@epicspaces9434]

@@szlash280z bigger than his brain for sure 🤣

[@johnpaulbacon8320]

Very Interesting

[@badboy10350]

The F-15 was never slated as a replacement to the F-14.

[@szlash280z]

McDonnel Douglas did propose the F-15 navy variant, but it wasn't selected

[@scottb7539]

We should still have the Tomcat.

[@slate4687]

The F15 would have been far inferior to the f 14 as a naval fighters for multiple factors

[@kamran945]

It was really very informative video. Please make a clip on air version Brahmos missile.

[@tomcatter2027]

dude the naval F15 was heavier. slower and the operational cost to make it carrier capable killed the program inmediately. the Tomcat was the answer

[@ViceCoin]

US Navy Phonenix never scored a kill in combat.

[@jamesmorgan9096]

Is there a declassified online repository of post flight data for certain military aircraft? Interested in getting some flight data for sim programming.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Not that I know

[@jamesmorgan9096]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech 👍

[@alexlo7708]

When US started to replace F14 by F18, there're no replacement for phoenix missile capability also. But US did it. So the reason why F15 would not win F14 in navy were not likely AIM54 on decisive. I think it because F15 has fast approach landing speed than F14 that may prone to risk the accident was the point.