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

Zen9

Banned
There was two short range AAM efforts AIM-82 and AIM-92 I think though my memory on the precise designation is hazy. In the US.
And Tail dog, SRAAM in the UK.
Viper in Germany
Sweden had an effort too.

Plus there was potential development of Red Top.
 
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.



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

An M16 is not a jet fighter, nor was it a failure although it did need improvement. The two can't be compared.

As for jet fighters: true, subsystems can be swapped out making for a much more capable aircraft, but you're still stuck with the limitations of the original design. Advances in materials and manufacturing techniques between the f4 and f15, like casting engine blades as a single crysal meant that pilots could slam throttles open and closed or wings that didn't bend in ultrea tight turns. Then theres other stuff like line replacable units for subsystems, where repair is by replacement rather than parking a jet so the avionics can be broken down for repair. Or engine thrust blocks connected by 3 pins for engine changes in an hour.

All these and many many more things add up to a fighter fleet capable of much more than a hotted up fleet of phantoms could ever do.
 
Navy will want long range interception and its chosen tool for that is the AWG-9 radar and the Phoenix which the F-4 cannot mount. There simply is no way that something like the F-14 isn't adopted. You would need a POD back to the end of WWII where the Navy for some reason does not think that long range strike craft needs to be intercepted long before they reach the fleet.
 
All these and many many more things add up to a fighter fleet capable of much more than a hotted up fleet of phantoms could ever do.

Sure, like YC-15 would have beaten souped up C-130 in most respects, or B-1 would beat B-52, or B-2 would beat B-1.
 
Sure, like YC-15 would have beaten souped up C-130 in most respects, or B-1 would beat B-52, or B-2 would beat B-1.

If you agree that's the case, then why would you insist the F-4 to soldier on?

Also, B-52, B-1 and B-2 are different designs that cater for different threat environment. Saying that the newer aircraft "beat" the older aircraft is amateurish. There are missions that B-52 would be more suitable than B-2 even today.
 

Zen9

Banned
Navy will want long range interception and its chosen tool for that is the AWG-9 radar and the Phoenix which the F-4 cannot mount. There simply is no way that something like the F-14 isn't adopted. You would need a POD back to the end of WWII where the Navy for some reason does not think that long range strike craft needs to be intercepted long before they reach the fleet.
Of course it can be mounted, but only a pair on the main pylons.
It would be a lot harder to get the normal 4 the F14 flew with.
 

Zen9

Banned
An M16 is not a jet fighter, nor was it a failure although it did need improvement. The two can't be compared.

As for jet fighters: true, subsystems can be swapped out making for a much more capable aircraft, but you're still stuck with the limitations of the original design. Advances in materials and manufacturing techniques between the f4 and f15, like casting engine blades as a single crysal meant that pilots could slam throttles open and closed or wings that didn't bend in ultrea tight turns. Then theres other stuff like line replacable units for subsystems, where repair is by replacement rather than parking a jet so the avionics can be broken down for repair. Or engine thrust blocks connected by 3 pins for engine changes in an hour.

All these and many many more things add up to a fighter fleet capable of much more than a hotted up fleet of phantoms could ever do.
There comes a point of diminishing returns on the increasing need to totally redesign the internal spaces for the avionics and engines that became available.
At some point it's simpler to just start from a clean sheet of paper.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
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.
Exercise is one thing but Soviets had only a handful of ssgn, a few rocket ships with asm by 1980
In a full fledged war with all the might of uSN they would be streched thin
 

Khanzeer

Banned
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?
F4 of 1965 would be very diffdifferfrom f4 of 1980
Plus its biggest threat numerically is the much maligned universally hated mig23
 

Khanzeer

Banned
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.
True but my timeline is 1975 to 1990.
AMRAAM I think is after 1991
 
Having read through this thread, I was surprised to see no mention of the F16XL. Without the F15E and needing a new strike aircraft to replace the F111, might we see the XL in the role of a modern multi-role aircraft? The immediate alternative would be the F/A18, though I suppose a ‘new’ F4 might be viable. I think a Tornado purchase would be unlikely without a US partner (got to keep the US aircraft industry happy).

Although only single engine, might the F16XL make a viable interceptor (better suited radar, swap bombs for missiles) as a replacement F106? Possibly as an interim - it’s the single engine that’ll count against it.
 
Of course it can be mounted, but only a pair on the main pylons.
It would be a lot harder to get the normal 4 the F14 flew with.

Missile isn't the main problem, radar is. AWG-9 was a beast and had some pretty miraculous features for its time and an absolutely godly range. Without that the Phoenix will not work.

F-4 simply isn't transferrable to the next gen of digital augumentation. It still has fully analog mechanical flight controls vastly inferior to even the F-14 which actually had some primitive AFCS stuff in it. And no it simply isn't a matter of putting new stuff in it. That would amount to changing virtually everything on it, costing as much to develop as a whole new plane.
 
Last edited:

Zen9

Banned
Missile isn't the main problem, radar is. AWG-9 was a beast and had some pretty miraculous features for its time and an absolutely godly range. Without that the Phoenix will not work.

F-4 simply isn't transferrable to the next gen of digital augumentation. It still has fully analog mechanical flight controls vastly inferior to even the F-14 which actually had some primitive AFCS stuff in it. And no it simply isn't a matter of putting new stuff in it. That would amount to changing virtually everything on it, costing as much to develop as a whole new plane.
I agree it was how shall we say. ...a miracle of packing to get the system into the likes of the F111 and F14. I understand it was stuffed into all sorts of spaces in the airframe.
 
Also the F-14 was surprisingly primitive in a lot of areas for its time. So its not really appropriate to compare it to the F-15/16 which were the first planes to really take advantage of the things the F-14 just barely started to sniff at.
 
Exercise is one thing but Soviets had only a handful of ssgn, a few rocket ships with asm by 1980
In a full fledged war with all the might of uSN they would be streched thin

Soviets fielded hundreds of ASM-armed warships by 1980, that was their reply for USN having aircraft carriers.
 
so PVO interceptors thrown in to intercept tactical strike planes ?
or to escort soviet intermediate range bombers like su-24 ?
or both ?

Soviets will not be picky in the case of full conventional war - shoot whatever you can and RTB.

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

BVR - not a contender. WVR - one of the best.

What about more developed mig-23ML/MLD versions and maybe something like a Mig-21 bison ?

MiG 21 is ancient history as far as Soviets are concerned (plus it is too short ranged, unable to mount a considerably better radar, air intake is of wrong type for maneuvering combat, canopy blended into fuselage) - better make new fighters instead.
MiG 23 ML/MLD is already 3rd generation of MiG 23 line (plus it has the old-type cockpit layout, VG wing that is less than ideal for fighter needs, vertically-set intakes) - again better make new fighters.

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

Yes, MiG 31 was capable for engaging multiple targets by SARH because it used the exceptional radar type. I don't think that F-15 as-is was capabe to engage more than 1 target with Sparrow.
 

Zen9

Banned
Ye-8 was a rather good development of the Mig21, a bit ahead of it's time even. But for internal political reasons it was cancelled after the prototype's crash.
Solid nose housed better radar.
Ventral intake was ideal for manoeuvres.
 
Yeah to my knowledge no AIM-7 capable aircraft were capable of hardlocking more than one target, your radar is blind to anything else the moment you do and missile has to be guided all the way.
 
AIM-7, being SARH, required the so-called 'target illuminator'. One such illuminator was carried per fighter, in the nose, sharing the space with radar antenna. MiG-31 used phased array radar to get around this limitation.
 
Top