![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,Kevin Brooks
blurted out: Any real evidence of this alleged opposition to the F-4? Let's see, the F-100. ... the F-105, ... was not exactly what those fighter pilots were thinking of when you say, "fighter aircraft"...where was this opposition again? Let me try again and see if you recognize opposition. Single seat fighter pilots "opposed" to the extra body sitting in an aircraft that lacked a gun. Do you see it?...single seat fighter pilots not wanting to fly with another guy in the jet...and not wanting to fly a fighter that didn't have a friggin' gun. There were lots of guys that thought this was not a very smart move on the part of the USAF. One might even say they were "opposed" to the idea of a two-seat, no gun tactical fighter. This doesn't suggest an alternative to the two-seated, no-gun jet...simply opposition to an extra body and no gun. Then there's the other convenient fact that the USAF was adopting a USN jet. The corporate culture clash of the USAF vs USN is fairly well recognized. Part of the "not invented here" POV that is/was reluctant to embrace the other service's equipment or tactics. This opposition doesn't negate the eventual acceptance and embracing to the F-4 by the USAF culture. See? I'm pretty sure that even in the Army those facts qualify as opposition. I don't recall the opposition against the F-16 as being anything like that that the A-10 faced early on, I agree...but I was addressing your incorrect analysis that there had been NO USAF opposition to the F-16. Kevin, you're tossing out extra bits and pieces simply to take the discussion off on a tangent. as well as later in its career--and where is all of that anti-F-16 later opposition? There is none. I never suggested there was. My response was addressing opposition to the introduction of the F-16 into the USAF inventroy. But if you were ever around WSOs in an F-4 squadron making the transition to F-16s I think you might have noted some displeasure toward the Viper. [say 1987-88 at Moody AFB or Osan AB after that] I flew the F-16, I loved the F-16. However WSOs losing their job in F-4 squadrons were not uniformly happy. One might even say they were "opposed" to the F-16...exception were made for the B and D. Thank goodness that his concept was not what ended up rolling off the assembly line then, as we know that the F-16 was indeed planned for multirole use from very early in its development. Agreed...the "concept" [as opposed to the "plan"] was for a guns and heater air-to-air jet, as this wonderful airframe has matured it has successfully taken on many missions not intended by John Boyd. Thankfully the USAF had other plans. Juvat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 1 | November 24th 03 02:46 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 2 | November 24th 03 05:23 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 24th 03 03:52 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 03 06:24 AM |
Landing gear door operation | Elliot Wilen | Military Aviation | 11 | July 8th 03 03:30 AM |