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

Khanzeer

Banned
^ PLEASE share more information about Su-15M with ogive wing
like this one ?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dizzyfugu/8665382111

upload_2019-4-7_13-34-26.png


yefim gordon in his book on su-15 says that the TM version was tested with A2G weapons and cannon pods as a potential strike platform but was not adopted
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
Question is why?

The Fleet needed a proper Fleet Interceptor. The F4 couldn't handle the AIM-54 and the associated radar systems. AIM-54 = New aircraft

The Air Force needed a counter to the Mig-25. The F4 was not capable of that role. Stopping MiG-25 = new airframe.

The F-16 was never meant to be anything but a light fighter, the original version couldn't even operate BVR missiles. The F-18 was, as much as any other role, designed to provide a A-7 replacement for the fleet as well as following a Congressional mandate to find a lower cost airframe to supplement the very costly Tomcat.
I don't know honestly
robin olds dies in ww2
curtiss lemay destroys fighter mafia
USAF feels BVR weapons on its long range escort fighters are sufficent to deal with foxbats
humor me ..I'm an amateur :biggrin:
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't know honestly
robin olds dies in ww2
curtiss lemay destroys fighter mafia
USAF feels BVR weapons on its long range escort fighters are sufficent to deal with foxbats
humor me ..I'm an amateur :biggrin:
Problem with all of it is that BVR was demonstrated to be inadequate in Vietnam, and the Fleet, in particular wanted/needed the Phoenix. What was demonstrated in Vietnam was you needed to be able to fight in close, all that early Red Flag/Top Gun would prove that even sooner. The F4 couldn't manage the AIM-54 and accompanying radars, not even close, and the navalized version of the F-111 was beyond a POS. That means new aircraft.
 
None of those really steer the US away from any of the 4th gen aircraft. Avionics are still mechanical and the benefits that FBW allows for in designs will mean that completely new airframes is a given.
 

Zen9

Banned
What radically changes things is developments like:-
Relaxed Static Stability.
Computer Control Configured Vehicle.
Where you can have a Centre of Gravity quite divergent from the Centre of Lift.
Fly By Wire is just a technology that permits the computer to keep the aircraft artificially stable. But it's the RSS and CCCV that deliver the leap ahead in agility.
In short it's the computer not the wires that change things.
Fly By Wire goes somewhat further back.
 
None of those really steer the US away from any of the 4th gen aircraft. Avionics are still mechanical and the benefits that FBW allows for in designs will mean that completely new airframes is a given.

(my bold)
Avionics were always electronics.
 
Problem with all of it is that BVR was demonstrated to be inadequate in Vietnam, and the Fleet, in particular wanted/needed the Phoenix. What was demonstrated in Vietnam was you needed to be able to fight in close, all that early Red Flag/Top Gun would prove that even sooner. The F4 couldn't manage the AIM-54 and accompanying radars, not even close, and the navalized version of the F-111 was beyond a POS. That means new aircraft.

It was more that the ROE meant you had to visually identify the target as hostile before launch with fighters like the Mig 17 and 21 that was pretty close up, Sparrow was never meant to be a WVR weapon which is one reason it had such a hard time and poor kill ratio's in Vietnam on the F4 and sidewinder had limited engagement arcs.
 
It was more that the ROE meant you had to visually identify the target as hostile before launch with fighters like the Mig 17 and 21 that was pretty close up, Sparrow was never meant to be a WVR weapon which is one reason it had such a hard time and poor kill ratio's in Vietnam on the F4 and sidewinder had limited engagement arcs.

It was also a matter of immature technology in terms of the radars and the missiles. A F-15 and AIM-7 in the 1980s was a much deadlier combination than a F-4 and AIM-7 in the 1960s or 1970s. Even the F-4 was a better combination with the AIM-7 later on as technology and tactics matured.

It is worth noting that Steve Ritchie scored all five of his kills with Sparrows. Apparently he was in tight with the weapons maintenance troops and they helped him select his weapons before every mission.
 
The USN isn't worried about Foxbat, Flogger, Fulcrum, or Flanker.

It's worried about Kingfish and Kitchen, Blinder, Badger, Bear, and Backfire.

Sparrow or Skyflash regardless, F-4 is not really capable of stopping a regimental attack from Soviet Naval Aviation before it turns your bird farm into an artificial reef.

It's not the F-14 airframe, it's the AWG-9 and the AIM-54 Phoenix.

The USN doesn't need a fighter. It needs a fleet defence interceptor. And the F-4 isn't it.

This seems to be the problem. The question Khanzeer seems to be asking is "What if the US Military was made up of complete idiots from top to bottom?" After all why wouldn't it upgrade its air power?
 
This is an interesting scenario but keep in mind it would be hard to stop the F-15 or a derivative from coming out as the USAF had an institutional dislike of the F-4 as it was a Navy plane but lets take a stab at it, there would have to be some almost ASB political interference to keep them in check and on this path.
the FX (F-15) and LWF (F-16) requirements were formed in the late 1960s as a result of combat in Vietnam.

John Boyd was a major influence in moving the FX towards a lighter and more maneuverable aircraft from early concepts which were heavier swing-wing proposals that were more interceptor than fighter in approach. Say ROE in Vietnam was different, more amenable to BVR combat, and the USAF performed better overall, there is now less impetus to replace the F-4 as it has performed better. The FX program starts and McDonnell Douglas gets picked like OTL but they experience cost overruns and delays that frustrate congress, the LWF program proceeds like normal. Because of overruns and delays congress directs McDonnell and the USAF to study F-4 improvements while continuing with the LWF as a cheaper supplement, from these studies an F-4 with the F-15 wings and avionics is developed and tested along with improved J79 engines (this was a real proposal from McD in 1969, model 98MS/MQ). Despite the USAF's insistence, the FX is cancelled and the improved F-4 is forced on them seeing as the F-4 performed well enough and it would keep some level of commonality across the services.

Incensed with the failure of the FX, the Air Force is determined to get a fighter based on their needs and the LWF happens like OTL, the YF-16 provides impressive performance and higher range than the cancelled F-15 while being cheaper which makes congress happy to go along with it. The Navy is also looking at a light fighter at this time with the NACF program, but congress intervenes again and on the basis of cost and commonality directs the Navy to develop a version of the F-16. General Dynamics teams with Vought to deliver the V1600 powered by an F401 which gains the F-18 designation ITTL. Sparrow capability is ported over to Air Force F-16s earlier than OTL due to Navy requiring it in their "F-18" and this allows older C and D model Phantoms to get replaced with F-16s while the improved "F-4E" fills out the ranks.

With the F-14 as other posters have noted, will come about in some form due to the F-4, even with some proposed variants being unable to reliably carry the AWG-9 and Phoenix. Instead of Grumman, Vought gets chosen to build their V507 due to their track record with the F-8 and A-7 as well as being lower risk compared to the G303 form Grumman. Due to problems experienced with the TF30 in testing, an afterburning TF41 is selected to power the "F-14" and it is introduced in 1972. Later models would introduce the F401 from the F-18 giving a much needed performance boost and fleet commonality.

To keep the Phantom relevant in the 1970s and 80s while the eventual ATF requirements are formulated, a variety of upgrades are undertaken by the Air Force. First the J79 is replaced with the PW1120 providing greater commonality with the F-16 and increasing performance, along with avionics that were developed for the F-15 being put into the Phantom as they are developed. Belly and fuselage CFTs give greater range and allow Phantoms to stop carrying draggy fuel tanks completely. The F-16XL takes the place of the F-15E and allows the F-111 to be gradually taken out of service starting in the 90s with a naval derivative replacing the A-7 in the Navy. Thoughts and criticisms so far?
 
With the F-14 as other posters have noted, will come about in some form due to the F-4, even with some proposed variants being unable to reliably carry the AWG-9 and Phoenix. Instead of Grumman, Vought gets chosen to build their V507 due to their track record with the F-8 and A-7 as well as being lower risk compared to the G303 form Grumman. Due to problems experienced with the TF30 in testing, an afterburning TF41 is selected to power the "F-14" and it is introduced in 1972. Later models would introduce the F401 from the F-18 giving a much needed performance boost and fleet commonality.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1881.msg136068.html#msg136068

In support of Have Blues argument, I'm linking to one of my favorite sites, Secret Projects; McDonnell had dozens of proposals for the Phantom in the 60s and I'd love for everyone to check out the "Advance Phantom" thread. Of note, I'm pointing out the "98CN F-4H/ADC Phantom IIG Advanced Interceptor with AN/ASG-18 - wing and tail area increased 20%, longer fuselage, two primary GAR-9, one alternate GAR-9, J93-MJ 252F engines. b) a 4 GAR-9 variant. (1960)", basically taking the best bits of the XF-108, the weapons systems and engines, and stuffing them into a bulked up Phantom airframe. Of course, it would never have the Mach 3 performance and the radar's range would most likely be cut down, but at least it adds weight to the argument that a Phantom variant is capable of long range air defense either over CONUS or for fleet air defense in the early 60s scenario.
 

DougM

Donor
The Navy and the Airforce booth had need of a new airframe as the existing aircraft were not able to the required work. And by the time you rebuild an F-4 or even redesign a new version you have spent so much you may as well replace it from scratch. In any design thier comes a time when a clean sheet design is more practical.
Why settle for 80% ability and no obvious growth path that costs you 90% of a new sheet design. Because to do what is needed/wanted is going to basically require the F-4 to be guttered and everything but the skin and structure to be replaced with new designs and even some of the skin and structure may need to be reworked a bit.
I knew someone with a house like that buy the time the remodel was finished it would have been cheaper to de o and start over and it would have resulted in a better house. The F-4 is much the same.
 
Why settle for 80% ability and no obvious growth path that costs you 90% of a new sheet design.

I think that is the problem CalBear has with the Alaska Class. It cost almost as much as an Iowa but less capable. I don't think he argued that it wouldn't work. As far as I know, the speed was fine, the guns worked and were accurate and fast enough for the day, etc but what would be the point of building it if it isn't as good as what you already have but isn't significantly cheaper?
 

DougM

Donor
Thier comes a moment in every design (except maybe the B-52). When the modifications become so extensive that you basically are designing a whole new aircraft but with the limitation of the original design pulling it down like a millstone around its neck.
The B-52 being an exception in that it’s original design purpose eveolved to the point that it doesn’t really have a combat mission as much as it is a truck that carries weapons.
But a fighter jet is a totally different thing. As we learned things about aeronautics and advanced control systems as well as improved weapons and sensors. And don’t forget improvements in materials sciences allowed for new ways to build the structure of the airframe as well as its engines.
And from the late 50s to the late 60s to early 70s was a time of large changes.
And keeping the Airforce and Navy locked to a dated design.
Any attempt to rebuild/redesign would either be constrained by the design or so redesigned that it would no longer be an F-4.
In truth the Super Hornet is an example of this. It is neither the inexpensive and nimble Hornet nor is it the next generation replacement for the F-14. It is constrained by trying to still be an F-18 in order to be slipped by the Congress. You could have started from scratch on a simple inexpensive design and achieved a better aircraft. The trick being to avoid the tendency to try and make it all singing and dancing.

So while it may be logical to extend the F-4 a few years and give the F-14 about 5 or so years newer tech and the F-15 a bit less. But in the case of the Navy expecting them to use F-4s on thier Super carriers is just not practical. Billions on dollars of floating airfields and then fill them with obsolete or rebased but still out of date aircraft.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Thier comes a moment in every design (except maybe the B-52). When the modifications become so extensive that you basically are designing a whole new aircraft but with the limitation of the original design pulling it down like a millstone around its neck.
The B-52 being an exception in that it’s original design purpose eveolved to the point that it doesn’t really have a combat mission as much as it is a truck that carries weapons.
The B-52 has changed missions multiple times over it's service life. With each change making use of one or more of the aircraft's attributes. For example, the BUFF was originally intended as a high altitude nuclear bomber. It then transitioned to a high-low-high mission profile as SAM systems became more effective. Then it evolved into the spiritual successor of the B-17 and B-29 by becoming a heavy conventional bomber over Vietnam. Then it became a platform to launch stand-off Nuclear missiles (something it's still partially tasked with) before finally becoming a close air support aircraft using PGMs. It was able to do all those because the airframe itself proved highly adaptable, because it can carry an ungodly amount of munitions and because it has an insanely long loiter time.

A fighter really has none of that. They are designed with a specific task in mind and are highly specialized for that task. At most they get some form of multirole capability which, while good, is not nearly as good as an aircraft dedicated to that task.
 
There is also the issue of maintainability. The F-4 was/is a beast to maintain, both the F-15 and F-16 are a lot easier to maintain because they incorporated new technologies and because maintainability was given higher consideration in the design and construction phase.

Ironically, maintainability is one of the reasons the USAF is cutting back on its F-35 by for some of the latest variants of the F-15 because for different reasons than the F-4 (mainly stealth), the F-35 is harder to maintain.
 
I think that is the problem CalBear has with the Alaska Class. It cost almost as much as an Iowa but less capable. I don't think he argued that it wouldn't work. As far as I know, the speed was fine, the guns worked and were accurate and fast enough for the day, etc but what would be the point of building it if it isn't as good as what you already have but isn't significantly cheaper?

Alaska class had an additional problem of it is designed to fight against an adversary that no longer exist by the time its first ship entered commission.
 
A fighter really has none of that. They are designed with a specific task in mind and are highly specialized for that task. At most they get some form of multirole capability which, while good, is not nearly as good as an aircraft dedicated to that task.

However, this is one of the reasons why Western aircrafts are considered as better force multiplers than their WP counterparts.
 

DougM

Donor
Yes the B-52 has eveloved jobs a lot. But for basically the last 50 years it has mostly been used as a truck. A 747 if it could be equipped with hard points and bays would all but be able to do the job of the B-52 post Vietnam.
Basically the mission of the B-52 for the last 50 years is. Carry weapons from point A to point B. Let said weapons go from point B to target location on thier own. Meanwhile turn and head for home. Do all or almost all of this beyond the reach of any effective opposition. And usually after the the other Airforce and or navy combat aircraft have cleared the skies of opposition or from a range that the enemy can not practically get to you.

You did not see B-52 over Baghdad on the first night. So in effect it’s true combat days are mostly behind it. Today and for the last 4 or 5 decades it is basically a transport aircraft that specializes in transporting weapons close enough to the target form them to go on thier own. When used as a “bomber” it is used after the threat to aircraft is alll but eliminated.

Don’t get me wrong it still serves a useful function and it does it very well. But it’s days of planed penetrations or the USSR in WW3 or its fighting its way to and from Hanoi are long past and if those were its mission today it would have been replaced long ago. Today the true bomber mission (go over enemy land and destroy things while the enemy still has active defenses) is all but a thing of the past. Thier are very very few bombers left and most of them are in the same “trucking” roll. Today this mission is specialized to the point that misses do much of the work and fighters such as the F-15 strike Eagle do most of the rest. The US thinks thier is so little need for this that they are down to a handful of penetration bombers. Yes they are talking about buying more but let’s see what really happens.

The point is that the combat mission has been much simplified for the B-52 and that is the main reason they are still in use. The combat mission of frontline fighters on the other hand have increased tremendously over the last 50 years. We see fighters doing more and doing it against better opposition with better tech. So while a 1950s “bomber” can still do its basic job of taking a large amount of weapons close enough to hit the bad guy a late 50s or early 60s fighter would be so outclassed by even 1980 that you would have to all but completely redesign it in order to be effective.

So really the idea of skipping the 14,15, 18 is just not possible, Alsi I don’t get why the 16 is spared. The Navy who in the 70s through 90s was much more likely to go in harms way and on whom we spend billions of dollars to build them mobile floating airbases is restricted to 40 year old fighters completely but the Airforce gets 16s? The logic is completely flipped on its head.
Also what about the F117?

I can see the logic of holding off a few years in for technology to improve and maybe we see the F-14 first flight in 75 and enter service in 78 hopefully by then the engines and electronics would be a bit better and take less maintenance.
But the Navy needs a top of the line fighter. It has been pure luck bordering on a miracle that they have gotten away without one sense the F-14 was parked. And as good as the Super Hornet May be it is not really up to the job be constrained as it was by being an “improved “ Hornet instead of a clean sheet design. Someday this may come back to haunt the Navy.
 
Top