WI no F-14/F-15 /F-18 with USN and USAF

There will probably be no need to give F-16 a SARH missile as in the OTL but to wait in the 90s until AMRAAM is in service
the BVR equipped F-4s will be sufficent to deal with the Mig-23s
I'm not so sure... I recall in the 1980's the F15 was seen as a potential CONUS / NORAD interceptor that had abilities none of the other (presumably USAF aircraft ) avalaible aircraft had. Without the F15 being avalaible I could see increased desire for an F16 with a BVR capability to address that requirement.

Plus I suspect the Canadians are also going to want interceptors with a BVR capability to replace their CF101's. I don't see them wanting to buy new F4's in the 1980's so maybe they end up partially funding a BVR capability for the F16 ?
 
so maybe the USN has a version of A-5 vigilante as a fleet interceptor to fulfill this particular role and not a fighter plane like F-14
Perhaps although they might (gasp :) ) consider bringing back the naval F111 or never cancel it to begin with ?
 
I think the F111 was a perfectly capable aircraft for the 80s and even 90s far ahead of anything the soviets had
I see no reason to replace it for technical reasons , i the believe the reason it was as the F-15E was multi-role and cheaper to maintain
Ok but given the historical role the F15E has played post 9/11 I suspect the historical USAF F111 fleet would have worn-out long ago if it wasn't replaced by the F15E.

In any event I suspect by the mid to late 1980's the USAF is going to be shopping for an F111 replacement. Maybe they buy the Tornado :) ?
 
Plus I suspect the Canadians are also going to want interceptors with a BVR capability to replace their CF101's. I don't see them wanting to buy new F4's in the 1980's so maybe they end up partially funding a BVR capability for the F16 ?

Why not? F-4's remained in production OTL till 1981, or 23 years. F-15 has remained in production for 1972-2022 (might stay for longer), or 50 years at least, CH-47 for 1962-2020(?), or 58 years, C-130 for 1954-?, or at least 65 years... I don't think there's a reason why F-4 could not stay in production for, say, 50 years. Of course the F-4Z-IV would not have a single interchangeable part with the original F-4, but that's a different question entirely...
 
Why not? F-4's remained in production OTL till 1981, or 23 years. F-15 has remained in production for 1972-2022 (might stay for longer), or 50 years at least, CH-47 for 1962-2020(?), or 58 years, C-130 for 1954-?, or at least 65 years... I don't think there's a reason why F-4 could not stay in production for, say, 50 years. Of course the F-4Z-IV would not have a single interchangeable part with the original F-4, but that's a different question entirely...
Well..

In the 1980's I suspect the Canadains are going to want a modern light weight tactical fighter with low operating costs for use in NATO. The F4 doesn't seem to fit that desctiption IMHO. So the F16 is probably a good fit for the NATO role.

But without a BVR capability I suspect the Canadians are going to be un happy potentially having to engage backfires and whatnot with Aim9's in a NORAD role. I also suspect the Canadians are going to be unhappy operating two different types of supersonic combat air craft in this time frame. I can sort of see them pushing for and perhaps partially funding a BVR capability for the F16. I suspect the USAF would also be interested in a similar air craft for their NORAD tasked ANG squadrons. (Edit to add ie an air craft along the lines of the F16 ADF that I don't believe existed when the Canadians chose the F18 IOTL.)

IMHO a lot might depend on the operating costs of advanced F4's vis a vis the F16.

I suppose (at least some ?) other early non US purchasers of the F18 IOTL might have similar issues / concerns in this time line.
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
I'm not so sure... I recall in the 1980's the F15 was seen as a potential CONUS / NORAD interceptor that had abilities none of the other (presumably USAF aircraft ) avalaible aircraft had. Without the F15 being avalaible I could see increased desire for an F16 with a BVR capability to address that requirement.

Plus I suspect the Canadians are also going to want interceptors with a BVR capability to replace their CF101's. I don't see them wanting to buy new F4's in the 1980's so maybe they end up partially funding a BVR capability for the F16 ?
if the threat is soviet bombers ( and they had no escort fighters) then can a cheaper and less sophisticated fighter than the F-15 fit the bill
I'm thinking again of F-101/104/106
plus in OTL f-16 ADF was developed with AIM7
 
Last edited:
If we're going with no F-15 / F-14 route, why F-16 / F-18, then? If improved sensors and weapons are the route, why pressing need for energy-manouverability etc.. Why not Lockheed CL-1200 / CL-1400, for example?
 
if the threat is soviet bombers ( and they had no escort fighters) then can a cheaper and less sophisticated fighter than the F-15 fit the bill
I'm thinking again of F-101/104/106
plus in OTL f-16 ADF was developed with AIM7
I suspect some of the issues for the Canadians will be:

-They probably had a very strong preference to only buying one fighter plane in the 1980's.

-They probably want to buy as new a design as possible (since they tend to keep aircraft in service for a long time..) preferably with growth potential.

-They probably have a preference to an "off the shelf buy"

-operating costs (ie. Fuel, maintenance etc) are probably a major issue. I have my doubts that a re worked F4 would be competitive in this area vs a F16 for example.

-they may have some desire for a twin engine air craft

-they probably need (or perhaps want ?) a BVR radar and an AIM 7 type weapon for the NORAD mission in the 1980's and beyond

Without the F18 being avalaible their selection process will be more complicated in this time line.

Edit to add:
To recap I could see the Canadians and perhaps some of the other early non US buyers of the F18 prodding the U.S. into producing something along the lines of the F16ADF in the very early 1980's. Given the reality of how North American air defence works I can see the U.S. also wanting the Canadians to have modern interceptors with BVR radar and AIM7 class weapons.
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
If we're going with no F-15 / F-14 route, why F-16 / F-18, then? If improved sensors and weapons are the route, why pressing need for energy-manouverability etc.. Why not Lockheed CL-1200 / CL-1400, for example?
I agree, I proposed keeping the F-16 primarily as a multi-role jet for smaller NATO allies with more emphasis on A2G roles
 
are these not sufficent to deal with unescorted soviet bombers ?
My understanding is that by the 1980's NORAD was moving in the direction of F15 class air craft and was contemplating building a Phoenix style AAM for that role.

As I understand things the threat was believed to be evolving towards surpersonic bombers with SRAM and ALCM style stand off weapons.

Edit to add: Back in the day I recall the Canadian selection of the F18 being critiqued due to its low top speed in a hypothetical war time mission against a Backfire.
 
Last edited:
are these not sufficent to deal with unescorted soviet bombers ?

Sufficient they are.
Issues might be that those those fighters are not in production any more (makes also getting spare parts a problem), while new engines (like the ones on F-16 and suggested for latest F-4s) should improve reliability (including the FADEC system), consumption and again access to new-production spare parts. Benign flight characteristics of the F-16 should also gain a plus vs. F-104, ditto for capacity to haul around more fuel and missiles in the same time.
We also have a thing where Canadian fighters might get deployed over-seas, where Soviet bombers coming above Artic circle are not that common, while other targets, both aerial and ground, are much more common.
 
Sticking with the F4 means a great lost opportunity , with the F14 it means losing the opportunity for the AWG9/Phoenix and the F15 the incredible air dominance capability. The reason that the 60s VFAX went nowhere was because it wasn't a better fighter than the F4/8 when Grumman could shoehorn the AWG9 into the agile 303 design and Vought could put the Spey into the A7A.

Similarly the USAF could get a lot more performance out of a 1969 design than a 1958 design.

So sticking with an upgraded phantom means losing significant capability opportunities.
 

GarethC

Donor
The USN would be the problem, as AWG-9/AIM-54 combination would not fit on F-4. But how about Lockheed "F-3" Viking based fleet defense fighter a la Douglas Missileer? As secondary role it could carry tons of standoff weapons for ASuW work or various bombs for colonial police actions. A "F-3" could stay on CAP practically for ever, and it could even mount a galley and toilet a la Su-34.
While the S-3 or A-6 airframes could handle the payload of the radar and 6xAIM-54, they are subsonic. The Missileer would have been more practical against the subsonic Tu-95 and T-16; against the Tu-22M threat that's an issue.

The carrier air defence team aims to get a CAP element to shoot down your SNA Tu-95D before it can paint the carrier and pass on its location. Failing that, it aims to get the CAP to shoot down the regiment of Tu-22M bombers before they launch their Kh-22 Raduga/AS-4 Kitchen. Failing that, it aims to get the CAP to shoot down the missiles in flight, followed by the group area air defence ship (usually one or two CG or CGN) to down the missiles, or to get the inner air defence ring of DDGs to down the missiles, or to get the close escort frigate to down the missiles, or to get the carrier's array of Sea Sparrows and Phalanx to shoot down the missiles, or to evaporate in a nuclear fireball (note - the last option is considered to be a suboptimal outcome to the exercise).

If your CAP flights are not on the threat axis (and some of them won't be) , then they need to dash to get to within the ~100+nm range of the AIM-54 to be able to engage (and those Tupolevs may be hooning along at 1100kts themselves). That's where a 1200+kt afterburning F-14 is vital over a 450kt MPA or attack aircraft; to sprint the 50nm to get into range before the MPA gets its transmission or datalink off, or the bombers get within range of the carrier. When it takes an extra 3 minutes to get into the missile envelope, that's the margin that makes the difference between trying to shoot down Mach 1.5 bombers before they launch, and Mach 4.5 missiles afterwards. Which means you need more CAP elements to maintain coverage of the area (since they can't do a supersonic sprint to get into range, they have to already be in range at detection). Which increases wear on machines and crew, burns out parts and burns up avgas, and is basically harder than relying on two pairs of F-14 for the same coverage.

Of course, if fixing the F-111 to be a navalised fleet defender was easy, it probably would have been done OTL...
 

Khanzeer

Banned
how many bombers can AVMF launch at a single carrier ? Maybe 10 bombers at the most
that is 20 missiles at most if each bomber carries 2 missiles
 

Khanzeer

Banned
and the F15 the incredible air dominance capability.
So sticking with an upgraded phantom means losing significant capability opportunities.
Can the F-4E not achieve the same air dominance even in the face of flankers and fulcrums as in the OTL ? Was the F-15 really needed ?
 
Top