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

Join this channel to support it: ru-vid.com/show-UCVDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin 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/

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 !

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.

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

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.

Everyone always overestimated the Phoenix missile capabilities.

Even AIM7 in F15 can match used of same AIM7 on F14, because at that time AWG-9 was much superior radar than radar put in F-15, so at that time F14 can used max performances of missile...F15 cant...

lol the airframe could've been modified for carrier operations, to try reasoning otherwise is preposterous.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I'm a longtime subscriber but that title is click-baitey nonsense. Edit: Title has been changed to reflect the content of the video.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

F-15s is Russia's jet fighters nightmare , undefeated in air to air combat only to be eclipsed MAYBE by the sheer number of shoot downs by the mighty F-14.

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).

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

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.

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..

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!

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.

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.

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

First, let me acknowledge that I am not up to snuff compared to your knowledge. But it seems to me your criticisms of the F14 are based on the first engine it was delivered with and not on the upgraded engines the F14 already had at the time of Top Gun. Further, the F14 could still be in the air, as the F15 is, today if the engines had continued to be upgraded as proposed.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Another great video!

Meg Ryan crying changed my life!

It is easier to Denavalise plane that visa versa. As matter of Fact owning cairer capable plane for Air force is not that big penalty anyway

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!?

F-15 gear track is too narrow for wing span, for safe carrier operation. F-16 has similar problem. Navy had learned this lesson from A-4 Skyhawk. A-4 is safe to operate off carriers but naval aviators had to be careful on trapping. As dynamic side loading on gear could cause gear collapse or tipover.

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

Butt slapping sailors 1:15

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.

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.

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

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

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.

$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.

Was no weapon system or radar system on an F-14 they couldn't easily be adapted to the F-15. I am intimately familiar with the aircraft. The only thing about an F-15 this different than an F-14, is that you can actually keep them in the air a lot easier because the maintenance requirements in the F-14 mean at best you're only going to have about 60% of them flyable at any one time usually less than that. The f 14 was a maintenance hog. The fact that Iran still has several of their F-14 still flying after all these decades is a testament that they are exceedingly inventive and technically capable people. Half of their Air Force was on flyable within weeks of the u.s. stopping support and spare parts for them. They had to learn how to make their own spare parts. The Phoenix missile system was originally designed for the a12 for crying out loud. It was not designed for the tf-x project. I know this because I worked on the F-111 and I'm fairly familiar with the Phoenix miss all the Phoenix missing was designed to be able to be fired at Mach 3 or better.

In general I prefer naval aircraft even for land based operation because of the greater reliabity they bring. As demonstrated by the A-3/B-66 a plane the USofA Navy found to be an unreliable maintenance hog but the USofA Air Force found exnavy A-3s renamed B-66 to be so reliable and low maintenance that they went back to the manufacturer for more initially not even eliminating the folding wings.

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.

This channel was a tad cringe ik the beginning. And hard to comprehend. But it's evolved so much the last half year i am happy to say I watch and love every episode now. And the English is such better to comprehend. Thank you sir.

The F15 is plenty sexy enough BUT NOT as a natural TWO seater, if the F14 only had one seat, people would wonder why it is soo big!!!

They should make a new fighter using Carbon Fiber Technology as proven in the Boeing Dreamliners. They should also develop a 100% bypass engine where the fan is driven by an axial electric motor. And the electricity is produced by a plasma jet fired through magnetic rings. Thus the fuel gives a higher burn for greater thrust while it provides electric power for the fan without the jet having to pass thru turbines with the resulting power loss. Also the fan speed is infinitely variable due to electric drive. In this engine the fan blades can be a carbon fiber composite so this plane will have a super low radar signature. Without requiring major shrouds, thus giving more engine efficiency with less weight. Also with lots of electric power ducted fans for landing and takeoff can be added no problem eliminating the need for heavy duty landing gear and big aircraft carriers period. As smaller ships can serve that purpose. Due to the increased strength from the carbon fiber hypersonic speeds should be possible and due to a much higher power to weight ratio wingless designs should be possible. Imagine cigar or saucer shapes.

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.

It always was a misterry to me why such a great superiority, long distance fighter was on the decks of the carriers by such an small period of time, now knowing it was due to engines? Still, amazed that if having such engine problems was picked for production

Interesting video. But, you need a better microphone. Your audio is kinda snap, crackle, pop...

Flat spin? That's a funny way of saying unplanned high-speed aerial kansei drifto.

Except the Phoenix missile wasn't as good as it said on paper in reality.

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.

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

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

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.

the tomcat could do the job better and more eficiently than the Eagle as a naval fighter

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

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!

could this be an F-15EX come from AMARG and repainted

Just bring back the tomcat. I ll bet the can update the tomcat systems and engines again. To put it back up at the top.

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

‘Insulating coatings’ not “isolating” - there is also no such thing as isolation tape - can someone please tell the world.

You sound like one of my old Aeronautical Engineering Professors.

At the a light aircraft and the less agile fighter in the world replace the f14 and no Phoenix

SO MUCH SALIVA IN YOUR MOUTH! 🤢🤮 TURN YOUR MICROPHONE DOWN!

US Navy Phonenix never scored a kill in combat.

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

top gun is a film for the navy bro. no F15 period

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.

"Nothing even vagly simular was avalible" Are you sure about that? What about the digital interconected radar system of the aj37 viggen?

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

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.

Can you do a video about TU 160 and TU22M..thx

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

3:10 The best moment in RU-vid history! Lol!

Dude, study your chemistry! Aluminum does not rust, it oxidizes! High School chemistry!

Please make a video on JF17 block 3. Tks

Woah there buster. Only metals made of iron rust. Rust is hydrous iron (III) oxide. Magnesium alloys are ver y susceptible to corrosion in the naval environment. The RN's Sea Harriers had no magnesium alloys whilst the RAF's had significant amounts.

Great video. Greetings from Brazil.

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