WI: USN buys a 'better F-14' instead of Super Hornet

How to change that ?
(in 1991....) No Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, let him have hearth attack.

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?
 
There are navalised Rafael, Mig29, Flankers.
Why not a navalised F15?
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
 
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?

Dick Cheney has long record of cardiovascular disease
He had his first heart attack in age of 37 in 1978, follow by attacks in 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2010
Also He underwent four-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting in 1988
There were even raised questions of whether he was medically fit to serve in public office...

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...
 
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...

That was my train of thought. If the navy wanted a fighter with ground-attack possibilities, it could have just added air-to-air capabilities to a maneuverable enough ground support plane. I know, it is a lot harder than the other way round, but I has been done successfully with the A4 Skyhawk and a few other planes. Plus when the requirement came up early enough in the design phase, the A12 could have ended up a true multi-role combat aircraft like the OTL Tornado or Sepecat Jaguar.
 

Ak-84

Banned
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?

QF-16 a unmanned remote controlled version by Boeing and tested in 2013 by the U.S. Air Force

Navalising a plane can provide problems

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..
 
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.
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 basis
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 ?
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

The USAF F-4 has a tailhook for the same reason USAF F-15's and F-16's have a tailhook, because most USAF bases have arrestor gear for emergencies, the difference is that they are not stressed to do this every day
 
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

little bit off topic but it show how mad the Luftwaffe was to go with F-104G
this Lockheed film was for US Navy (at 8:40 on video feature SATS catapult launch of F-104)
 
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.
 

SsgtC

Banned
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.
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.
 
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..

Well the USAF F4's just took advantage of it for landings at airfields equipped with arrestor wires/barriers. The hook on airforce aircraft is not as heavy or robust as a naval arrestor hook as it is intended to slow an aircraft over a longer distance than on a carrier.
 
I think you have to have the Cold War last longer. That is the only way you will get the Navy (and Congress) to accept the higher costs of the various proposed advanced Tomcat variants.

I'm also betting supportability costs play into the decision as well. Even with new technologies, the upgraded Tomcats will still be harder and costlier to maintain than the Super Bugs.
 
Aye there basically needs to be a threat to keep fuding going. As was said earlier perhaps the Russians sell the Backfire to China as well as the AS-6 missile system. Whilst this is MASSIVELY unlikely due to Russia and Chinas cold relationship, but perhaps if the USSR starts running out of money they offer a Regiment or two to the Chinese in return for a feckton of hard currency. In the 90's the PLAN and PLAAF wasn't a threat to the USN. Their jets were largely MiG-21 and friends and their best bomber was the Badger and their best missile was an exocet clone whilst their best sub was a Romeo in a rather natty skirt. Now you've suddenly got a very capable jet bomber with a potent missile that is made to kill USN carriers. Tiawan shits bricks over this development and the threat in SEA suddenly goes up a fair bit.

The need to retain the F-14 suddenly appears and this could then press for an upgrade or perhaps the development of an F-14 II so you're not upgrading what is basically a now fairly old aircraft.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Well no, they had more and more Flankers coming in. Then produced as the J-11. But you are right the really high level stuff came in the early to mid 2000's, like the new J-10 and JF17 multi role fighters and more and more AsHM's, and then the early 2010's onward has seen bleeding edge stuff. Famously J-20, but also some very advanced avionics and jamming gear.

But many of these were paper projects in the 1990's, and known to US intelligence. So, maybe have these projects employed as an excuse to build more high capability stuff. LIke STC-21
 
True but they were still not much of a strike threat, if the Chinese got some Backfires and Kingfish then the threat is very much there (as you can bet that they'd be taking them apart to clone them too).
 
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.

The 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
wpid-fb_img_1422695602477.jpg


Republic Aviation had solution on that problem and proposed a more compact design for 1960s TFX (what became the infamous F-111)
tumblr_inline_nwbls2PkY41t90ue7_1280.jpg
 

SsgtC

Banned
The 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
wpid-fb_img_1422695602477.jpg


Republic Aviation had solution on that problem and proposed a more compact design for 1960s TFX (what became the infamous F-111)
tumblr_inline_nwbls2PkY41t90ue7_1280.jpg
Except that's a legacy Hornet in that picture. Not s Super Hornet. A Super Hornet is much bigger than the aircraft in the picture
 
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.
That still means one or two more aircraft that can be carried on board.
The Super bug folds up a little smaller than a Tomcat.
 
Top