WI: No (F-15) Eagle?

Nikephoros

Banned
Thank you sir.

I figured that this thread needed the input from someone who has practical experience in the field.
 
Seraph, the AIM-54 is active homing, although it can take a mid-course correction from the AWG-9. The AMRAAM's guidance system is superior in that it calculates and follows a collision course to the target rather than the target itself.

The YF-17 was a land-based fighter designed and built by Northrop for a fly-off which was won by the F-16. End of career. The Navy subsequently ordered up an aircraft based on the layout and called it the F-18. M-D was prime and Northrop second contractor. The F-18 shared no parts or dimensions with the YF-17, just general configuration. De-navalizing was then easy. The change to F/A-18 was another story.
My mistake, sorry.
 
To get back to the original question, if I understood it, the "what-if" was that the USAF ditched the Eagle and we got a dual use Tomcat for the AF and USN, right? Not all that bad an idea, but the basic matrix was that the cost savings of common use parts was just not sufficient for the loss of performance in the Central European and Korean Peninsula - which were the main games in those days. Lot of computer time and skull sweat went into those decisions, believe me.

That help any?
Ed

Thank you good sir. I think you got the WI essentially correct (I was thinking more like the AF buying into the Tomcat before they start the FX program, but yours is pretty much the same thing). I'm curious about the performance penalties that the AF thought they would have in Europe and Korea, so if you can give any more info on that, it would be nice.
 

stalkere

Banned
Thank you good sir. I think you got the WI essentially correct (I was thinking more like the AF buying into the Tomcat before they start the FX program, but yours is pretty much the same thing). I'm curious about the performance penalties that the AF thought they would have in Europe and Korea, so if you can give any more info on that, it would be nice.

Right off the top of my head, without resorting to numbers, the big thing is thrust to weight and fuel consumption rates. They wanted high speed sprint and good payload. There's some wiring bus issues that I've been told - don't know for certain- that would be difficult to resolve.

Try this - the F-15 is an interceptor with some dog fight capability...the bomb dropping capability is more of an afterthought than anything else. The Tomcat is a dogfighter with limited interceptor capability and a pretty decent bomb dropping capability.

Also, recall that they were originally designed as cutting edge 1972 tech. These days, IIRC they have a cement block in the nose of the F-15 to preserve weight-and-balance. But in 1972, both aircraft were chockful of electronic components.

There was a bit of design philosophy in there, and the Eagle/Tomcat debate was an edge to that. Because the Navy was into long distance, long duration missions, with a lot of BVR shots, a RIO was still the best answer, especially in 1972. But you pay a penalty for the RIO, in terms of weight, life support systems, hell, training costs, personnel costs, that sort of thing.

In the congested airspace of Central Europe and Korea, you aren't going for BVR shots. You want visuals of the target. The AF went with a bigger computer system that would give them an admittedly limited version of the RIO...but they didn't need the extra capabilities that a RIO gives you. The difference between RIO plus life support vs bigger target computer gave them room for more fuel or payload.

also - and this is no small thing - mission duration. Normal AF mission duration for Central Europe or Korea was 1.5 hour. Standard Navy mission is 4-5 hours. AF pilots might-might!- get one or two long duration mission - an ocean hop - every couple of years, maybe never. Navy pilots do 4-10 hour missions as a normal thing.

So the Eagle wartime mission was, get up there, smack the red hordes with a lot of firepower and come back to refuel/re-arm. The Tomcat mission is to go out, patrol, and maybe hit a Mig or two, then come back to the boat.

This argument was re-fought a few years ago, when the JSF design was going on. The AF, Navy and Marine versions are considerably different - I think 60% commonality of parts was the figure I saw - but the Navy-Marine swapouts are a Class B mod - 48 -72 hours to convert from one to the other, while the AF version is a class C mod - 30 days to convert.

The AF is now into the same long flight time, and uncluttered sky mode that the Navy has always been in, and so I expect that you will see the debate go to mostly to high salt maintenance considerations in this generation.

That help any?
 

burmafrd

Banned
Interesting take. True the pressure to do multiple missions same day would be much higher in Europe; Korea not so much since we would almost certainly have control of the air from day one. On the other hand dealing with mass waves like the WP would send being able to salvo 54's beyond their range would be interesting; not likely the individual aircraft would be able to tell who is being targeted. You would get a lot of kills while being far beyond their range.
 

stalkere

Banned
Interesting take. True the pressure to do multiple missions same day would be much higher in Europe; Korea not so much since we would almost certainly have control of the air from day one. On the other hand dealing with mass waves like the WP would send being able to salvo 54's beyond their range would be interesting; not likely the individual aircraft would be able to tell who is being targeted. You would get a lot of kills while being far beyond their range.

Facepalm.:mad::confused:

Yes, BVR would be pretty cool in Europe.

"not likely the individual aircraft would be able to tell who is being targeted. You would get a lot of kills while being far beyond their range."

Except...you are supposed to kill the ENEMY.

In the congested airspace of Europe, and with 1972 IFF, how do you confirm what you are KILLING? Hell, it happens today, and we have IFF systems that are incredibly more advanced than 1972.

That is the one little thing that the video games just can't seem to get right, and the casual reader just doesn't grasp.

So you get in close, "knife fighting" range as they call it, and you confirm that you're killing a MiG and not a NATO bird. A RIO just isn't much of an advantage when you have to get a visual to make the shot. By the time you close to visual range on the target, and enhanced 1972 computer can make the confirmation and lock up the target, for a quarter the weight of a RIO and life support.

And Korea - 1972 - remember that we were worried about the PRC, well into the 90s. Sure, the MiG 17/19/21 - the "teenagers" as we call them - are no match for the Eagle and Falcon - but there are a LOT of them. and if the PLAAF is in the mix, well, short cycle times and multiple missions are even MORE important.
 
Top