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

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

Looks like the Iraqi MiG-25 shoot down two recce F-4s, but no fighter versions.
No worries for the MiG-31, it will get developed, B1 and cruise missiles are still there. Let's not be convinced that Soviets will not throw MiG 31s in Europe, need-be.
As for the MiG-29 - once F-16 is a known variable in the East, the MiG company will make a new, shiny lightweight fighter to balance the situation.
Sukhoi company will also make a new-gen fighter, priced in-between the expensive MiG-25/31 and 'lightweight MiG' so they have something good and numerous to throw against the Western AF's that have F-16s, much improved F-4s, Mirage 2000 and Tornado, plus F-111s and Mirage IVs.

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 ?

Basically, yes.
As a missile-thrower, F-14 was superior, not just because of ARH missiles, but due to the radar and RIO behind the pilot.
Note that SARH missiles can also be used against multiple targets from single fighter, provided the radar is capable to do it.
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
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 ?)
Blue cat you may very well be right I'm not sure and you have a very valid argument

but I feel like the soviet fighters were built as a response to rapid western fighter developments in the mid-late 70s

AFAIK the F-16 is considered if it is BVR equipped then soviets will certainly have a big headache otherwise they may try to counter it with newer mig-23 versions maybe with off bore sight missiles /HMS etc by early 1980s
 
Blue cat you may very well be right I'm not sure and you have a very valid argument

but I feel like the soviet fighters were built as a response to rapid western fighter developments in the mid-late 70s

AFAIK the F-16 is considered if it is BVR equipped then soviets will certainly have a big headache otherwise they may try to counter it with newer mig-23 versions maybe with off bore sight missiles /HMS etc by early 1980s
Fair enough. This has been an interesting discussion :)

Regards
Blue cat
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Looks like the Iraqi MiG-25 shoot down two recce F-4s, but no fighter versions.
thanks for looking deep into it , i consulted some tom coopers work as seems like iranians downplayed their losses
they lost atleast 1 x f-4e and 1 x f-4c to mig-25 and no foxbats were lost to f-4
seems like you were right

No worries for the MiG-31, it will get developed, B1 and cruise missiles are still there. Let's not be convinced that Soviets will not throw MiG 31s in Europe, need-be.

so PVO interceptors thrown in to intercept tactical strike planes ?
or to escort soviet intermediate range bombers like su-24 ?
or both ?

As for the MiG-29 - once F-16 is a known variable in the East, the MiG company will make a new, shiny lightweight fighter to balance the situation.

I personally feel f-16 in the earlier versions was not a big enough threat in itself in the A2A arena atleast

Sukhoi company will also make a new-gen fighter, priced in-between the expensive MiG-25/31 and 'lightweight MiG' so they have something good and numerous to throw against the Western AF's that have F-16s, much improved F-4s, Mirage 2000 and Tornado, plus F-111s and Mirage IVs
.
What about more developed mig-23ML/MLD versions and maybe something like a Mig-21 bison ?


Basically, yes.
As a missile-thrower, F-14 was superior, not just because of ARH missiles, but due to the radar and RIO behind the pilot.
Note that SARH missiles can also be used against multiple targets from single fighter, provided the radar is capable to do it.

i think mig-31 radar can do that due to its radar
but can the f-15 radar direct 2 x AIM-7 at 2 different targets ? I think its theoratically possible but not practical in combat conditions
 
Does this approach prompt some significant upgrades to the F-106 as our primary interceptor? The last weren't retired until 1988 OTL.
 
Does this approach prompt some significant upgrades to the F-106 as our primary interceptor? The last weren't retired until 1988 OTL.

I don't know. I suspect the remaining useful life of the air frames would be something that would need to be considered.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Does this approach prompt some significant upgrades to the F-106 as our primary interceptor? The last weren't retired until 1988 OTL.
Yes enough upgrades to keep it viable till early 90s
Plus we will have f16 ADF in larger numbers for NORAD
 
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, a F-4E against F-15A?

But, if a road to gradually improve F-4 was taken, it would too have better engines and better avionics. With less money spent on developing F-15, there would be better weapons and better avionics too, as the US would not be lured by "Energy-manouverability" -route but just develop better dogfighting missiles.

There were various concepts to improve F-4 even in OTL, such as Boeing Super Phantom and IAI Super Phantom, F-4X Phantom with Mach 3 speed etc. Like I said, if F-14/F-15 road was not taken, the 1980's Phantoms, let alone 2000's Phantoms, would bear little resemblance of their 1950's cousins.

IMHO, ultimately the whole 4th Generation Fighters development was largely a waste, only stealth has offered really revolutional capabilities over what 1950's and 1960's airframes were able to produce. Just load them with better engines and gear, just like they have done with C-130, CH-47, B-52 et al. Sure, 4th Gen fighters have been good aircraft. Money would have been better spent on weapons, sensors and EW, such as IRST, phased array radars, dogfighting missiles, active radar missiles, standoff AGM weapons, towed decoys etc. rather than better airframes themselves. These capabilities would have been available on 3rd Gen aircraft much earlier if money had not been used as much to procure entirely new 4th Gen aircraft.
 
Last edited:
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.

Then again, S-3 airframe would be able to stay on CAP practically forever compared to F-14's and far away along the threat axis, so the availability of airframes already in the air and operational might trump over theoretical capabilities of F-14's. S-3 type airframe might be able to carry larger missiles as well, as well as be capable of carrying them back to carrier, thus enabling larger CAP capabilities in practice.

But, of course fixing F-111, if possible, might be an easier route.
 
Its hidden things that make the 4th gen fighters worthwhile, like ease of flightline maintenance, ability to generate sorties, reduced pilot workload, reduced part count. All the non sexy stuff that actually creates airpower by making the fighters more than expensive lawn ornaments. These 'fleet' factors push the adoption of advanced aircraft as much or more as speed etc: think of the salaries saved by making the F15 a single seater, or the maintenance time fixing a 1959 design.
 
F-4 can fulfill that role too but it does not have ARM missiles just SARH ones

There is no reason why F-4 would not be subsequently equipped with AR missiles when AIM-120 is developed. In fact, the German and Greek Phantoms have been upgraded to be able to use AIM-120 in OTL. There is also rumors that the Israeli and Turkish Phantoms have been upgraded to be able to use non-US BVRAAMs.
 
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

Sorry, the Soviet conducted exercise that launch simultaneous attacks from multiple missile platforms at an imaginary USN CVBG with 100 missiles. Soviet Cold War era ASM threats included more than the Soviet land-based Naval Aviation.
 
The F4 didn't secure air superiority over Vietnam against Mig 21/19/17s, SA2s and AAA, how would it secure air superiority over Europe against better everything?
 
Its hidden things that make the 4th gen fighters worthwhile, like ease of flightline maintenance, ability to generate sorties, reduced pilot workload, reduced part count. All the non sexy stuff that actually creates airpower by making the fighters more than expensive lawn ornaments. These 'fleet' factors push the adoption of advanced aircraft as much or more as speed etc: think of the salaries saved by making the F15 a single seater, or the maintenance time fixing a 1959 design.

And those hidden things are not so much created by the airframe per se, but improved subsystems, such as better engines, better avionics etc. I'm fairly sure C-130A is an entirely different animal from C-130J in these regards. As for single seat issue, it would be fairly trivial issue to design a single seat variant of F-4 or just to leave the seat empty like USAF is planning to do with F-15X.

The F4 didn't secure air superiority over Vietnam against Mig 21/19/17s, SA2s and AAA, how would it secure air superiority over Europe against better everything?

M-16 was largely a failure in Vietnam, so how come M-16 family of weapons could be used in 21st Century?
 

Zen9

Banned
A focus on the F4 rather ignores the prevelance of the F104 Starfighter. There was a development of this called the Lancers that fixed a lot of the shortcomings of the original. It also informed the later developments like the Hornet.

Prior to TFX which became the F111 there was the Missileer concept. The missiles used had substantial boosters to give them the desired range/speed.
This would presumably be used on later developments like the Pheonix.

However this lack of F15 and F14 might leave the US to continue on the likes of Delta Scorpion and the F12 (Blackbird).

However this sort of thing is not confined to the West.
Reading my material, I'd suggest the development of the Mig21 could gave proceeded despite the prototype's crash.
Similarly with the Su15-22 system.
As with the mighty Tuplavov 145.

But I also think the Mig23 is a dead end and something would ultimately replace it that is more agile. Several option existed.
 
A focus on the F4 rather ignores the prevelance of the F104 Starfighter. There was a development of this called the Lancers that fixed a lot of the shortcomings of the original. It also informed the later developments like the Hornet..

One might also add, that with earlier development of helmet mounted sights and off-boresight all-aspect IR-missiles the focus on aircraft manouverability would be much less, thus Lancers climb rate, speed etc. would be tempting.
 
Top