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

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 ?
To recap... My understanding is that in the early 1980's the F15 was perceived as having capabilities vis a vis the NORAD role that no other USAF air craft had.

I realize that at first glance on paper the F4 and the F15 may seem to have similar abilities in the interceptor role but I suspect in practice the F15 had a lot of advantages that may not be apparent from reading a summary of the specifications.

I would expect the differences against other fighters would be even more pronounced.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Sure i understand that but specifically what makes the F-15 so much better than F-4 in the air-superority role ? not the interceptor role
 
The 'Missiler' concept also imparts less airspeed on the AAM it will launch, than it will be the case for a proper supersonic fighter, thus forcing the AAM to use a good deal of it's engine thrust to accelerate from Mach .5-.6 to Mach 1.4-1.6. Thus the AIM-54 (or any other AAM) will have less range when launched from, say, A-6 than it will be that case with F-4 (obviously, provided those A/C are suitably modified), the shortcomings mostly visible when engaging high-speed targets.
 
Sure i understand that but specifically what makes the F-15 so much better than F-4 in the air-superority role ? not the interceptor role
IMHO Amongst other things:

it was designed from the outset to be an air superiority fighter as well as a capable interceptor.

It had more modern engines (F100 turbofans vs J79 turbo jets.)

It had more modern avionics

Etc..
 
Sure i understand that but specifically what makes the F-15 so much better than F-4 in the air-superority role ? not the interceptor role

Much better engines, much better ellectronics (including radar fully 'look-down, shoot-down' capable), air intakes better suited for high AoA flight, better canopy for better visibility. New-gen airfoil. Fuselage was supposed to contributed to the lift by a large margin, Israelis told the world that their pilot managed to bring down the F-15 that lost one wing in the mid-air collision.
 
The 'Missiler' concept also imparts less airspeed on the AAM it will launch, than it will be the case for a proper supersonic fighter, thus forcing the AAM to use a good deal of it's engine thrust to accelerate from Mach .5-.6 to Mach 1.4-1.6. Thus the AIM-54 (or any other AAM) will have less range when launched from, say, A-6 than it will be that case with F-4 (obviously, provided those A/C are suitably modified), the shortcomings mostly visible when engaging high-speed targets.
Yep.. I suspect the USN (and probably the USAF) would have been decidedly un happy if they didn't have the F14 and F15 in service in the later part of the Cold War.
 
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

Way too big an aircraft, they would reduce the size of the Air Group, plus no one was making A5's at the time and it had its own issues.

OFFTOPIC but iranians have used HAWK SAM on their F-4s are these ARH or SARH ?

They also tried out SAM6's but the issue is that this was forced on them by their AIM54's getting too old and simply not having an alternative. It was really a desperation move.
 
Yep.. I suspect the USN (and probably the USAF) would have been decidedly un happy if they didn't have the F14 and F15 in service in the later part of the Cold War.

Agree pretty much. Those two pushed boundaries by a large margin.
On the other hand, we'd probably see the 'early F-22' program and it's USN counterpart kicking in by early 1980s, bearing fruit along the F-117.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
IMHO Amongst other things:

it was designed from the outset to be an air superiority fighter as well as a capable interceptor.

It had more modern engines (F100 turbofans vs J79 turbo jets.)

It had more modern avionics

Etc..
right
But we are talking about 2 different approaches
technology push ...as you are suggesting
and requirenment pull..what I'm suggesting in this timeline
i.e was the F-15/F-14/18 really needed given the threat of WP airforces in the early to mid 70s and assuming the soviets had no immediate plans to rush development of flanker/fulcrum as they did to counter the threat of teen fighters.We can assume they would be fielding just improved versions of existing fighters until the end of 80s

The F-4E with updated avioices and weapon systems was more than enough in the 80s to counter the best that soviets had to offer , so granted the F-15 is a much better fighter in many respects but what it really needed to ensure NATO air-superority ?
 
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.

The Canadians operated F104 fighters in Germany. They looked at both the F16 and Mirage 2000 but considered they needed a twin for NORAD operations as operating over Northern Canada was much like operating over water.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Much better engines, much better ellectronics (including radar fully 'look-down, shoot-down' capable), air intakes better suited for high AoA flight, better canopy for better visibility. New-gen airfoil. Fuselage was supposed to contributed to the lift by a large margin, Israelis told the world that their pilot managed to bring down the F-15 that lost one wing in the mid-air collision.
yeah but I doubt if saudis could do the same , so its the human factor more than anything else

agreed that all those features makes it superior to F-4, but were these features crucial to maintain NATO air superority ?

All the funds that were spent on these 3 fighter programs could have been better used to update existing ones ?
 
right
But we are talking about 2 different approaches
technology push ...as you are suggesting
and requirenment pull..what I'm suggesting in this timeline
i.e was the F-15/F-14/18 really needed given the threat of WP airforces in the early to mid 70s and assuming the soviets had no immediate plans to rush development of flanker/fulcrum as they did to counter the threat of teen fighters.We can assume they would be fielding just improved versions of existing fighters until the end of 80s

The F-4E with updated avioices and weapon systems was more than enough in the 80s to counter the best that soviets had to offer , so granted the F-15 is a much better fighter in many respects but what it really needed to ensure NATO air-superority ?
I don't agree the F4E could counter the best the soviets had to offer in the 80's as well as the F15 could. To some extent I am basing this opinion from sources I have read where the F15 was believed to provide a transformative gain in capabilities over any other USAF air craft vis a vis the NORAD role. I presume the same held true in other roles as well.

Edit to add:

I also vaguely recall reading some assements that spoke of the ability of "scruffy old F4's" piloted by seasoned pilots to handle the Soviet threat in the 1980's. I seem to recall the general tone was that they would have been of some use but the newer aircraft were much more capable.
 
Last edited:
agreed that all those features makes it superior to F-4, but were these features crucial to maintain NATO air superority ?

All the funds that were spent on these 3 fighter programs could have been better used to update existing ones ?

The F-4 was unable to beat MiG-25, improved F-4 will hardly over-power the MiG-31. Plus there is a number of Soviet bombers and missiles the F-15 and/or F-14 can defeat already from the box.
At the end of the day, one plans for enemy's good moves, not for bad moves. Staying with F-4 in 1970s/80s just to discover the Soviets introduced one, 3 or 5 new combat aircraft en masse will not be a mark of good planing on part of the USA. USA have had enough of funds to develop the 3 fighters.
 
All the funds that were spent on these 3 fighter programs could have been better used to update existing ones ?

IMHO:
Upgrading existing air frames may result in some short term gain, but at some point the airframes will need to be replaced.

Once new air frames are needed I suspect designing and building new ones makes more sense than rebuilding old designs with improvements.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
The F-4 was unable to beat MiG-25, improved F-4 will hardly over-power the MiG-31. Plus there is a number of Soviet bombers and missiles the F-15 and/or F-14 can defeat already from the box.
At the end of the day, one plans for enemy's good moves, not for bad moves. Staying with F-4 in 1970s/80s just to discover the Soviets introduced one, 3 or 5 new combat aircraft en masse will not be a mark of good planing on part of the USA. USA have had enough of funds to develop the 3 fighters.
F-4 will unlikely face the Mig-31 even if the soviets do develop one as in the OTL
as its role was strictly interception of bombers not air superority

and in BVR combat, even the F-15 would have a hard time killing the foxhound

Did the Mig-25 ever shoot down an F-4 in combat ? I'm not sure
 

Khanzeer

Banned
I don't agree the F4E could counter the best the soviets had to offer in the 80's as well as the F15 could. To some extent I am basing this opinion from sources I have read where the F15 was believed to provide a transformative gain in capabilities over any other USAF air craft vis a vis the NORAD role. I presume the same held true in other roles as well.

Edit to add:

I also vaguely recall reading some assements that spoke of the ability of "scruffy old F4's" piloted by seasoned pilots to handle the Soviet threat in the 1980's. I seem to recall the general tone was that they would have been of some use but the newer aircraft were much more capable.
You are right as in the OTL by mid-late 80s soviets had 500 + fulcrums and a couple of hundred flankers
but these aircraft were only rushed into service due to NATO having over 2000+ 4th gen fighters by 1985
 
and in BVR combat, even the F-15 would have a hard time killing the foxhound

I vaguely recall reading that the radar on the F15 had a specic mode for "anti mig 25" use.

I also believe it's dash speed when carrying AIM7's was somewhat higher than the F4.

I suspect the F15 will be more likely to intercept a Mig 25 than an F4.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
IMHO:
Upgrading existing air frames may result in some short term gain, but at some point the airframes will need to be replaced.

Once new air frames are needed I suspect designing and building new ones makes more sense than rebuilding old designs with improvements.
Indeed but they can make it till 1990 atleast ,
The turks egyptians iranians and israelis were flying their F-4s well into the 90s
 

Khanzeer

Banned
F-14 seems more useful than F-15 though
in the 80s , the F-15 carried only SARH missiles so it can hit only one target at a time right ?
but the F-14 has ARH missiles and can deal with multiple threats at once ?
 
You are right as in the OTL by mid-late 80s soviets had 500 + fulcrums and a couple of hundred flankers
but these aircraft were only rushed into service due to NATO having over 2000+ 4th gen fighters by 1985
Well..
The thing is you seem to be assuming that the better Soviet aircraft were only built in respsone to the F14, F15 and F18.

I'm not convinced this is the case.

IMHO the F16 is going to prompt a Soviet Response. I also suspect other nations may want aircraft similar to the F15, the F18 (and perhaps even the F14.)

I could see the French for example continuing with the development of the Mirage 4000.

I also see a reasonable market in the west for a light weight multi role fighter with BVR capability. Presumably all the non US buyers that purchased the F18 in the 1980's would be potential customers (if the F18 didn't exist and the F16 didn't get BVR capability sooner ?)
 
Top