How to change that ?
(in 1991....) No Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, let him have hearth attack.
The Rafale was designed to be a carrier plane from the get go, it wasn't navalised so much as denavalised for the land based version. Navalising a plane can provide problems, you need to use different alloys for corrosion resistance, have a stronger structure to survive arrested landings, and for the US catapult launches, modify the undercarriage for strength and need a larger wing that to get more lift that needs to fold for storage. All of these add weight, and depending on how tight the margins within the aircraft some changes may not be possible without needing to rearrange the whole aircraft. It is a case by case thingThere are navalised Rafael, Mig29, Flankers.
Why not a navalised F15?
Of course, Chaney having a heart attack in 1991 also means he won't be VP 2001-2009, so this whole question would probably be moot. Hell, the whole discussion could just as well be: What would have been a better choice for the Navy: A/F12-B or F22 Sea Raptor?
A/F-12 ?
if you mean the A-12 Avenger II interesting idea to make the Plane Fighter version for USAF (A/F-12) , it could have survived cancelation, special if Dick Cheney is out the way...
True. But the F15E is a pretty different A/C from a baseline Eagle or even a F15 B or D. Even an F16 has some significant variations in its various blocks.The Rafale was designed to be a carrier plane from the get go, it wasn't navalised so much as denavalised for the land based version. Navalising a plane can provide problems, you need to use different alloys for corrosion resistance, have a stronger structure to survive arrested landings, and for the US catapult launches, modify the undercarriage for strength and need a larger wing that to get more lift that needs to fold for storage. All of these add weight, and depending on how tight the margins within the aircraft some changes may not be possible without needing to rearrange the whole aircraft. It is a case by case thing
Note that the Su-33 is basically a new aircraft compared to the Su-27, Mig-29K is more similar to the original
True. But the F15E is a pretty different A/C from a baseline Eagle or even a F15 B or D. Even an F16 has some significant variations in its various blocks.
Does anyone know if there will be another version after the F-16V?
Navalising a plane can provide problems
This is true, but determining if it is worth navalising would depend of factors such as "could you increase the cross section of these internal support segments by y% without having to move anything" and "could you strengthen the landing gear to handle x extra force without having to rearrange them" and figuring that out would require a lot of info that is not easily accessible. Whether you basically need a whole new aircraft and call it a variant or can get by with an actual variant depends on factors like that, and must go on a case by case basisTrue. But the F15E is a pretty different A/C from a baseline Eagle or even a F15 B or D. Even an F16 has some significant variations in its various blocks.
To be fair to the Skywhale, the USAF's issues were that they were trying to make a high altitude plane do low altitude stuff, and having to change things to that. Usually denavalising an aircraft is a lot easier. Same reason the F-104 was such a widowmaker for Germany but the Spanish had no accidents with it, the Germans were trying to use it for low altitude ground attack while the Spanish kept it as a high altitude interceptorThere several story about that and how it can goes terribly wrong like A-3 Skywarrior conversion for USAF into B-66 Destroyer
Have you always wonder why the USAF F-4 had landing hook ?
To be fair to the Skywhale, the USAF's issues were that they were trying to make a high altitude plane do low altitude stuff, and having to change things to that. Usually denavalising an aircraft is a lot easier. Same reason the F-104 was such a widowmaker for Germany but the Spanish had no accidents with it, the Germans were trying to use it for low altitude ground attack while the Spanish kept it as a high altitude interceptor
Except the Rhino isn't THAT much smaller than a Tomcat. A lot of people don't realize that the Super Bug is A BIG plane, about the same size as an F-15C.Size was also a major factor in choosing the Super Hornet over an improved Tomcat.
Dealing with limited space on the carrier's hangar deck, size is a major consideration.
QF-16 a unmanned remote controlled version by Boeing and tested in 2013 by the U.S. Air Force
There several story about that and how it can goes terribly wrong like A-3 Skywarrior conversion for USAF into B-66 Destroyer
Have you always wonder why the USAF F-4 had landing hook ?
Or try to make the F-104 customize for catapult launch, not for US Navy, but for German Luftwaffe
Even F-16 was consider for Aircraft carrier use, but never got it
So forget it to put a F-15 on Aircraft carrier catapult..
Except the Rhino isn't THAT much smaller than a Tomcat. A lot of people don't realize that the Super Bug is A BIG plane, about the same size as an F-15C.
Except that's a legacy Hornet in that picture. Not s Super Hornet. A Super Hornet is much bigger than the aircraft in the pictureThe A/F-18 got better up folding wing as F-14 that just folding it wing back in supersonic position for storage
Note on picture how the A/F-18 take less space as F-14
![]()
Republic Aviation had solution on that problem and proposed a more compact design for 1960s TFX (what became the infamous F-111)
![]()
That still means one or two more aircraft that can be carried on board.Except the Rhino isn't THAT much smaller than a Tomcat. A lot of people don't realize that the Super Bug is A BIG plane, about the same size as an F-15C.