Zheng He wrote:
Possible of course but frankly the Air Force had good reasons for NOT allowing themselves to be forced into using the F-14. Unlike the F-4 the F-14 wasn't originally an "air superiority' aircraft but a long range "missile" bus for the Phoenix with "some" capability to engage in air-to-air combat. The Air Force wanted and needed an actual air-superiority fighter capable of going into a dogfight with the likes of the Mig-21 at ranges all the way down to guns. Hence while they 'look' similar the F-15 is more maneuverable and agile than the F-14 with better acceleration. The F-18 and F-16 even more so. (Hence the reason a lot of us actual military folks got a lot of laughs out of the F-14s "out-maneuvering" F-5's/Mig-28s and A4s in "Top Gun" since the main "lesson" is actually 'don't get into turning fights with the small fry' which Navy crews found out when facing similar aircraft which were not restricted to following "Soviet" air-to-air doctrine

)
I also think you're missing several 'butterflies' since the Air Force would have almost immediately found the "BombCat" option as they were desperately trying to avoid buying and operating the A-10. Too late of course but it means that when the initial idea of retiring or transferring the A-10 to the Army comes up in the late 80s it will probably be acted upon rather than resisted as per OTL since the Air Force can override the Army's protests since the "F-14" can be the close support 'bomb-truck' the Army wants while still being a 'fighter' the Air Force wants. Hence when Desert Storm rolls around in 1991 the only "Warthogs" in theater will be OA-10s belonging to the Army and most ground attack will be with F-14 "StrikeCats"
Further I'd not be surprised if the whole 'light-weight' fighter program doesn't get a boost in the arm since the Air Force F-14 won't be as capable in close combat as OTL's F-15. So you may see an expansion of the number and types of F-16s the USAF fields up to an possibly including some operational version of the F-16XL.
Michel Van wrote:
Understate much?
The 15 is lighter and more maneuverable and was specifically designed to 'dogfight' whereas the 14 was primarily a 'missile' bus for the Phoenix with some fleet defense capability. The 14 was optimized for BVR engagements whereas the 15 was optimized for medium and short range engagements with some BVR capability.
Yep and rapidly concluded that VS wasn't worth the cost or complexity and didn't give any advantages over fixed wings for the parameters required. Which is one reason the Air Force would fight tooth-and-nail being force to use an aircraft that met almost none of the 'criteria' required for its operational planning.
Ak-84 wrote:
1) While the F4 served the USAF well it wasn't 'optimized' for the kind of combat the Air Force planned to fight. Then again it wasn't for the Navy either which is why they wanted the F-14. In the end though they "look" similar the missions and operations of the 14 versus the 15 are significantly different and would not have been met by the use of either in the others role. At best you'd have another "F-4" which does none of the jobs needed well but can in theory at least do them OR you end up with another "F-111" which can't really do ANY of the jobs required and is actually useless to one or both services in the originally planned role. (The "keyword" here is it was supposed to be an "F" not an "FB" for both the Navy and Air Force)
As I pointed out above (as did Michel) the path that lead to the 14/15 was complicated and twisted BUT it was pretty clear to everyone that neither aircraft could be effectively 'shoe-horned' into the role of the other without great compromise and cost. And with the "lesson" of the F-111, (and MacNamera still around to admit it was all a mistake on-record) no one was going to push that kind of outcome again.
2) Pretty much so and in fact to the degree that the "light-weight" (and supposedly lower cost) fighter advocates managed to get a foot in the door which lead to the F-16 and eventually the F-18.
3) Again correct, the F-15 was always supposed to be mid-to-short range 'heavy' air superiority fighter with some long-to-BVR capability. Similarly the F-16 was supposed to be a 'dogfighter' optimized for short-to-mid range combat as there was a 'need' to cover both regimes. If the Air Force is forced to use the F-14 then they will have far fewer of them and more F-16s
About radar and missile "lock-on": Ak-84 actually has the sequence pretty accurate, (as an aside one should take a "pilots" description of operations with a grain of salt they normally are not fully aware of the sequence of events simply because it's not information that they specifically need to know, I've over 15 years as an Air Force Weapons Technician which means I had vastly superior knowledge than the "operators" did because I in fact DID need to know exactly how they worked

) and let me state up front NO IR missile does "LOAL" mainly for safety reasons as they cannot distinguish between IR sources well enough to avoid going after a 'friendly' in the acquisition cone once launched. IR missiles are fully autonomous post-launch and therefore a danger to any IR source. (And before anyone thinks they can be 'programed' to ignore "friendly" IR sources it has taken decades to get them to stop chasing the Sun and have some chance of being able to distinguish between a 'flare' and an actual aircraft so, no)
Further air-to-air combat radars have several 'search' and 'combat' modes and these ARE well known despite trying to keep them secret as long as possible. You can in fact have the radar in BOTH search and combat at the same time but it is VERY clear when a radar goes from 'search' to 'lock' and YOU are the target because the pulse-train, pulse repetition frequency and power level are very distinct. (Hence where you get the scene where someone gets a 'lock' tone meaning an enemy is now using concentrated combat radar ON YOU. Note that there is NO such warning for an IR missile due to the obvious fact that IR is a passive system and therefor give off no 'warning' radiation)
Aircraft radar DOES in fact 'dip' in power when a missile is launched. This is to prevent damage to the missile electronics due to high-power microwave interaction/interference/damage issues. (Normally a 'safety zone' is blocked off up to 20 feet in front of an air combat radar during ground testing due to personnel and equipment hazards generated. Needless to say a missile tends to be a LOT closer when it passes into the 'danger' cone) This in fact is one reason that 'hand-off' semi-and-active missile guidance systems were developed so that now one networked fighter aircraft can use another's' 'radar-lock' to fire on so that there is no detectable drop in the radar signal.
(I could never confirm it but my 'other' 5 or so years in the AF were as an AWACS/E3 Sentry Radar Maintenance Technician and during that time several of us discovered that the E3 had mountings and wiring runs for a "Missile Control" system which was not installed. From my 'other' job I could surmise that the E3 could emulate some 'combat' radar signals at further distances and higher power levels therefore possibly allowing data-linked aircraft to use the E3 returns for guidance and control of semi-or-active radar seekers)
The Phoenix, (which was fired by the RO in the rear seat, not the pilot) had several modes with most of the long range shots being launched in the 'general direction' of the target while the F-14 maintained a "target-lock" to track and update the missile near its mid-course-point. This allowed the F-14 to track 6 separate targets and then 'assign' a missile to each as they came within the missile terminal guidance phase and activated their own radar. Shorter range mode would have the missile radar switch on just after launch, (for the same reason the aircraft radar went to reduced power on launch) where it would 'synch' with the target lock of the aircraft tracking the target and then use its own radar to follow the target once locked. It was not actually a "fire-and-forget" missile except in short range engagements where its own radar was activated shorty after launch. In most long range modes it had to receive 'updates' on the target location as between the time of launch and activation of its own seeker the target could have moved outside its possible search cone. (Onboard radar range was "about" 11 miles or 18km)
Randy