On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:39:43 -0400, wrote:


Why should the US NOT have bought the Hunter? It's cost was only about
half that of the F100. That would have come to a $660-million saving
over the life of the aircraft, or about $6-billion in today's money.
Even if a decision to buy Hunters had been delayed until the F100 was
ready for service, the development cost of the Super Sabre
($23-million) would easily have been written off.

Then there was the F100's awful accident rate. 889 aircraft, or about
one-third of the total production, were lost to accidents, involving
the loss of 324 pilots.

Had Hunters served as many hours as the F-100, I would expect it to have
similar losses:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuk...6#.Vvxyr_krKUk

In wartime you can expect a lot of accidents (half the aircraft lost in WWII
were lost to accidents). From 1961 until their redeployment in 1971, the
F-100s were the longest serving U.S. jet fighter-bomber to fight in the
Vietnam War. Enemy fire and training accidents took their toll over ten
years.

Oh, and BTW, the F-105 Thunderchief became the dominant attack aircraft
early in the Vietnam War. The F-105 could carry more than twice the bomb
load farther and faster than the F-100, which was used mostly in South
Vietnam. Of the 833 F-105s built, a combined 395 F-105s were lost in
Southeast Asia, including 334 (296 F-105Ds and 38 two-seaters) lost to enemy
action and 61 lost in operational accidents.

OK, the F-100 was faster by about 25mph in level flight and ongoing US
developments called for somewhat different requirements.

Hey, you're catching on!