The F-14 Tomcat may be a legendary fighter that got the Hollywood treatment in 1986’s “Top Gun,” but for a short time in the 1970s, the Navy considered tossing the Tomcat in favor of flying the F-15 from its aircraft carriers instead.
Today, the F-14 conjures images of a bygone era, when American airpower was predicated on fielding the fastest, most powerful, and highest-flying jets the nation’s technological capability and economic might could muster. This devotion to brute force and rapidly advancing aviation technology produced incredible platforms that aimed to beat enemy defenses not with stealth, but by straight-up outflying them. Jets like the B-1B Lancer combined the speed and variable-sweep wing design of a fighter with the ability to carry a massive 75,000-pound payload into the fight. Others, like the F-16 Fighting Falcon, emphasized low cost and high performance, becoming the most popular (and common) fighter platform on the globe.
This push for performance was mirrored by America’s Cold War opponent in the Soviet Union. As each nation fielded a more powerful, more capable, or more advanced platform or weapon system, the other would respond in kind, dumping funding into programs aimed at offsetting any potential advantages the other seemed to have. But even amid this era of large defense expenditures and the looming existential threat of nuclear war, budget–as much as capability–often dictated the makeup of America’s arsenal.
And it was just such a debate over dollars and cents that once threatened to put the F-14 on the chopping block, and led to a proposal to field a different kind of F-15 modified specifically for aircraft carrier duty. This new F-15N Sea Eagle aimed to be lighter, faster, more maneuverable, and cheaper than Tom Cruise’s Tomcat, but concerns about armament ultimately kept this jet from ever making it off the drawing board.
But what prompted the Pentagon to consider putting the F-15 on aircraft carriers in the first place? To understand that, you need to understand the failings of the otherwise venerable F-14. Most people are already aware of just how incredibly expensive it was to maintain, but issues with the Tomcat extended well beyond the Navy’s pocketbook.
Related: B-1B Gunship: Boeing’s plan to run big guns on the Lancer
Trouble with the Tomcat
The Grumman F-14 Tomcat was an incredibly capable aircraft, and with good reason. In an era before Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) had matured into the go-to nuclear weapon delivery vehicle they would become, the Tomcat was designed to neuter the Soviet Union’s most potent means of putting nukes on American soil; their long-range bombers. To this specific end, Grumman had designed the largest and heaviest carrier fighter in history, with a fair amount of that weight dedicated to a suite of powerful new weapons and the systems required to leverage them. When fueled up and ready to go, the F-14 weighed in at 61,000 pounds, which is almost twice that of the future F/A-18 and quite a bit more than twice the weight of a fully-fueled F-16 Fighting Falcon.
Despite all of that heft, the Tomcat needed to be fast in order to succeed at its mission, so Grumman paired the F-14 with the TF-30 engines the company had originally fitted to the F-111B they had failed to sell the Navy on earlier. Each engine could produce 14,560 pounds of thrust under military power, with the afterburner kicking output up to 25,100 pounds. All told, the F-14 could use that combined 50,000+ pounds of thrust to push the aircraft to an astonishing Mach 2.3, and its variable-sweep wing design gave it excellent handling at both the low speeds required for carrier landings and the high speeds needed to intercept Ivan before he could deploy his anti-ship missiles toward an American carrier. In fact, those adjustable wings gave the Tomcat a tighter turn radius than most other modern fighters, which can mean all the difference in a dogfight.
But for all its capability, the Tomcat could also be troublesome. The TF-30 engines were indeed powerful, but they were also too sensitive for the job. When operated at high angles of attack, or when the pilot adjusted the throttle position too quickly (both common facets of the air combat the jet was built for), the engines were prone to compressor stalls.
Because the engines were mounted a vast nine feet apart to allow for greater lift and more weapons carriage space, a stall in one engine could throw the aircraft into an often unrecoverable flat spin, ultimately leading to the loss of more than 40 jets.
But it wasn’t just the stall issue plaguing the engine’s in Maverick’s ride. The turbine blades inside the engine were also prone to fail long before their anticipated service life expired, causing catastrophic damage to the engine and putting pilot’s lives at risk. Needless to say, these mechanical issues only made the already expensive F-14 even pricier to keep in service.
Navy Secretary John F. Lehman Jr. went on to say the TF30 engine “in the F14 is probably the worst engine-airplane mismatch we have had in many years. The TF30 engine is just a terrible engine and has accounted for 28.2 percent of all F14 crashes.”
Today, we may look back on the F-14 with wistful awe, remembering how it was the only fighter that could stand toe-to-toe with the (fictional) MiG-28. But when it was in service, not everybody loved the Tomcat… or maybe it’s more fair to say lots of people liked the Tomcat, they just hated its engines.
Related: Vought 1600: The plan to put the F-16 on America’s carriers
An F-15 designed for duty aboard aircraft carriers
McDonnell Douglas could read the writing on the wall before the F-14 even entered operational service. While the Grumman aircraft was plenty powerful and capable, they saw its high cost and mechanical issues as an opportunity to expand production of their own air superiority fighter that was in the works: the yet-to-fly F-15.
Today, we know the F-15 as the most capable air superiority fighter of its generation, with an astonishing 104 air-to-air kills without ever being shot down by another fighter. At the time, however, it was barely more than a paper plane, with its first test flight not to come until midway through the following year. But even if the F-15’s performance figures were technically still imaginary, they were too impressive to ignore.
The F-15’s development had been kicked into high gear the year prior, in 1970, when the Defense Department first got wind of the new Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat. Armed with little more than reconnaissance photos and vague reports of sightings from Israeli pilots, the Pentagon’s experts saw the aircraft’s large wing area and powerful engines as indicative of an air superiority fighter that was unmatched by anything in Uncle Sam’s arsenal. The Air Force and McDonnel Douglas set out to mitigate the perceived advantage the Foxbat provided, redoubling their focus on the F-15s air-to-air prowess. Eventually, the U.S. would learn that the Foxbat was nowhere near the powerhouse they believed it to be, but their misconception had motivated them to produce a very real powerhouse in the Eagle.
The F-15 wasn’t originally designed to serve aboard aircraft carriers, but it was designed to dominate the skies of the Cold War. With the Navy set to begin purchases of Grumman’s pricey F-14, McDonnell Douglas entered a proposal for the F-15N Sea Eagle–and it wasn’t a bad shot.
At a gross weight of 44,500 pounds, the F-15 was 16,500 pounds lighter than the Tomcat with a similar load. That’s the equivalent of an M198 howitzer with a fireteam of troops to run it. Because the F-15 had a relatively low weight-to-wing-area ratio, it was more maneuverable than the F-14, and its less problematic pair of Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engines gave it a higher top speed, beating the Tomcat’s Mach 2.3 by a healthy 150 or so miles per hour.
But better than faster or more maneuverable in the minds of some lawmakers was its price. McDonnell Douglas was prepared to deliver F-15As to the Air Force at a sticker price of $28 million per aircraft (or about $189 million in 2021 dollars). High as that may seem, the larger and more complicated Tomcat rang in at $38 million per aircraft, or about $256 million today. That’s right… one F-14 cost about the same as almost three F-35s today.
Related: F-15 ACTIVE: This Frankenstein fighter was better than the F-15
The F-15N Sea Eagle was the Phoenix missile’s only confirmed kill
In order to make the F-15 suitable for aircraft carriers, McDonnel Douglas knew the platform would have to be modified. The F-15A already had a tailhook, intended for use on short airstrips or in an emergency, but a carrier fighter needs to rely on its hook for every landing, so a larger reinforced hook was added to the design. To make for easier storage below deck on carriers, the wings would fold up at a 90-degree angle a bit more than 15 feet from each tip. The landing gear would also have to be swapped out for a more rugged set that could withstand the abuse of carrier landings on a rocking ship. McDonnell Douglas said they’d set about designing the new gear if the Navy wanted to move forward with the aircraft.
With these changes incorporated, the F-15 only gained a paltry 3,000 pounds, which, combined with better maneuverability, a higher top speed, and a much lower price, all made this new Sea Eagle sound like a pretty good deal… but there was one glaring shortcoming. Capable as the F-15N may have been, it couldn’t carry America’s latest and greatest air-to-air missile, the AIM-54 Pheonix.
The Phoenix missile had been developed for the Navy’s defunct F-111B fleet carrier fighter effort that McDonnel Douglas had also been involved with, so the firm logically migrated it and its supporting systems to their new Tomcat. The AN/AWG-9 radar developed specifically for use with the AIM-54 Phoenix was capable of tracking up to six separate targets at ranges as far as 100 miles. When coupled with a bevy of 13-foot-long Phoenix missiles, it made the F-14 an air-to-air opponent without equal.
In fact, the combination of the Phoenix missile and AN/AWG-9 was so potent, some believed it offset the F-14’s engine woes, arguing that the fighter didn’t need to be fast and maneuverable when it could shoot its enemies down from such long ranges.
Putting the F-15 on America’s aircraft carriers might have been cheaper, and the aircraft itself may even have been better in some respects, but without Phoenix missiles, the Navy just wasn’t interested. However, McDonnell Douglas remained undeterred, enlisting the help of Hughes Aircraft (designers of the AIM-54) and returning to the drawing board to devise a version of their aircraft carrier F-15 that could wield the Pheonix as effectively as the massive but mighty Tomcat.
But it wasn’t as simple as slapping these missiles onto the F-15’s existing hardpoints. Not only were the weapons relatively large, but so was the AN/AWG-9 radar needed to run them. The hefty Tomcat could carry a maximum of six Phoenix missiles, but famously couldn’t land with all six still onboard. If ever an F-14 scrambled to intercept Soviet bombers with 6 missiles and returned without firing them, the pilot would have to dump a few into the ocean in order to land safely. Fitting these weapons onto the F-15 was enough work to warrant a new title, and the updated Sea Eagle was dubbed the F-15N-PHX. But with all that added firepower, the new F-15N-PHX weighed in at 10,000 pounds heavier than a standard F-15, totally eliminating its performance advantage over the Tomcat.
In 1973, a Senate subcommittee convened to decide what fighter the Navy would fly into the future, with the F-14, new F-15N, a stripped-down iteration of the F-14, and a heavily upgraded version of the F-4 all considered to varying extents. Senator Thomas Eagleton, who was a Navy veteran himself, proposed a fly-off between the F-15N and the F-14, but it never manifested.
In the end, the U.S. Navy chose to stick with the Tomcat, and surprisingly enough, even the U.S. Air Force found itself looking for a cheaper alternative to the F-15 just a few short years later. Like the Tomcat, the F-15 was incredibly capable, but also rather pricey. The effort to field a lower-cost fighter to complement the F-15 eventually produced the F-16 Fighting Falcon, which the Pentagon would also press for duty aboard aircraft carriers, before the F/A-18 Hornet came about.
The F-15 is far from the only unusual aircraft to be pitched for carrier duty. Make sure to check out our articles about efforts to put the F-16, the F-22, and the F-117 on aircraft carriers, or you can read about how the U.S. really did fly C-130s and even U-2 spy planes off of them during the Cold War.
Want to learn more about the F-15? Check out the Frankenstein F-15 that was better than the one we got here, or how a pilot landed an F-15 after it lost an entire wing here.
In fact no matter if someone doesn’t be aware of afterward its up to other visitors that they will assist, so here it happens.
These are in fact impressive ideas in concerning blogging.
You have touched some fastidious things here.
Any way keep up wrinting.
Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you writing this post and also the rest of the website is very good.
Wow, fantastic blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is magnificent, as well as the content!
As I web-site possessor I believe the content matter here is rattling fantastic , appreciate it for your hard work. You should keep it up forever! Best of luck.
You can definitely see your expertise within the work you write. The sector hopes for more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. Always go after your heart.
I am just writing to make you be aware of what a superb encounter my friend’s princess found reading your site. She picked up such a lot of details, most notably what it’s like to possess an incredible coaching nature to make other people just grasp chosen specialized matters. You really did more than my expected results. Thanks for delivering those good, safe, edifying and even easy guidance on the topic to Lizeth.
This is a topic that is near to my heart… Many thanks!
Exactly where are your contact details though?
I was recommended this website by my cousin. I’m not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my trouble. You are incredible! Thanks!
Everyone loves it when individuals come together and share views.
Great website, keep it up!
Spotify Free users and premium users each can use the app on Windows, Mac,Android and IOS.
Hello, this weekend is good for me, because this time i am reading this fantastic informative
paragraph here at my residence.
Excellent way of describing, and nice paragraph to take data on the topic
of my presentation topic, which i am going to deliver in school.
Can the US Navy make, a F-14 Swept Wing Style NGAD/FXX Fighter???
Mach 2.5
70, 000 LBS Thrust
Implied in the article is that the F14 was built by McConnell Douglas. Since not one word tells us that the bird was actually built by Grumman Aerospace, I have to assume the author is ignorant. Sorry, I served aboard Nimitz in VA35 76-83 and was traded back and forth between VA 35 and VF 41 and 84 to service the Martin Baker GRU7 ejection seats the A6 and F14 used over the years, I can attest to the fact that ALL these birds were Grumman. Grumman, who built the lunar lander, never gets their props for the products that really carried NAVAIR for 50 years combined, the A6 Intruder and Tomcat. And just look at the failure of the F35 and F18. The F35 is a failure equal to Ford Class and the F18, a major compromise in filling the twin roles of the Tomcat and Intruder in fighting, bombing and especially re-fueling. Pathetic. But carriers are dead meat today. The planes you fly off dead meat carriers don’t really matter do they?
McDonnell Douglas, but otherwise your comment is spot on.
As a QA specs pro with alot of military interest
to bring to the table I think it long overdue that rather
than design our present jets with middle ground design in mind to accomodate all branches
of services;its high time we design and build jets specifically different for each branch of military . corp and their needs and requirements.
The F-14 was a pile from the get-go, after Congress forced GD to send GD’s swing-wing technology to Grumman so they could build it. I worked personally with their engineers to get it done. Otherwise why did they mothball the beast so early. Now the Navy wants to screw up another Air Force jet in hopes of recovering some of their wasted stealth funds.
The same tragic mods await the wonderful Eagle’s superb reputation that defined the GD designs. Namely, a dropped snoot to visualize the meatball and then kill airspeed, as well as the monstrous gear tonnage to destroy the 15’s unbeatable performance. Add stealth and you’ll have another aero-bow-wow.
Your F-35 costs are off. I would check out POGO articles on F-35 pricing if I were curious.
The engine problem was solved when they came out with the super tomcat with the GE 110 engine. It did not stall like the Pratt and Whitney engine. An interesting fact is that the only F-14s left are those in museums. All the others were destroyed because they were afraid spare parts would fall into Iranian hands.
Phoenix, not Pheonix
You captioned the us airforce under what is a Polish f16 escorting a b1
Nicely written and very informative. Enjoyed the article.
As a retired Naval Flight Officer with over 2700 hours in the venerable Tomcat, I can tell you that the entire premise of converting the F-15 for Navy use aboard an aircraft carrier is more in the realm of science fiction. NO Air Force tactical aircraft has EVER been converted for use by the Navy aboard an aircraft carrier. The reason is very simple. As an aircraft lands on an aircraft carrier, in what has often been referred to as a controlled crash, the landing gear and airframe are subjected to tremendous forces that would literally tear an Air Force aircraft apart. This is no dig at the Air Force. They save a lot of weight by not having to build aircraft that are beefed up to withstand carrier landings. That allows them to increase fuel or ordnance loads or to just get a better thrust-to-weight ratio, among other things.
Converting an Air Force aircraft for Navy use would cost more than designing a new Navy aircraft. On the other hand, the Air Force had purchased and used several Navy aircraft without major modification. The F-4 Phantom is a good example. There are any others.
If you look closely at the three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, you will see the significant differences in them due to their operating environments. They are all designed to do different things, so they have been built to perform those missions.
The F-16 shown, escorting the B-1, is from the Polish Air Force.
NR, if you’re going to publicly bash someone on a misspelling, then at least include you’re name. It’s comments like yours that take the joy out of reading an article as such, especially when one gets down to the comments and has to read one, such as yours, that is not constructive.
The F-15EF and CD could be improved on by replacing the 40 5/8 clearance bolts on each side of the vertical stab with taper locks thus preventing the upper tip structural repairs costing millions of dollars over the life of the aircraft. This condition also requires oversizing the 100 quarter hi-loks on the bottom of the aircraft which are constantly oversized for a tighter fit due to wear. The lower fasteners are there only to keep the environment out.
You need a proof reader for spelling errors…not just Phoenix…..I don’t trust automated spellcheckers….they have their own errors…..XLNT content however!
Please check your spelling of Phoenix in one of your captions. You have a masters degree in communications . I’m sure it’s not too difficult to run spellchecker.
This is a complete waste of taxpayers dollars and absolutely stupid because the Navy will simply destroy the F-15 with their controlled crashes on Navy boats. Get a grip. You know the Navy is obsessed with twin engines. The F-15 is too sophisticated to be squashed on carrier decks. This makes me absolutely sick.