AIM-54 Phoenix missile

Ed,

(As an aside, how does size of the radar or "paletts" for the Phoenix
result in a larger cockpit? Gotta say the F-105 cockpit was the
biggest single-seat office I ever saw and the F-15 operator station
isn't cramped, either.)

I don't think I said that paletts for AIM-54s made the cockpit "large". But,
OK.

Then, let us not forget that the AWG-9 is not only a radar: I'm sure you
know better than me that it's actually a whole weapons system, _including_
the AWG-9 radar.

So, while the cockpits of F-105s and F-15s are certainly not as cramped as
that of the MiG-21 (quite on the contrary: that of the F-15 was definitely
the largest in a one-seat fighter until the appearance of the Su-27), they
are still neither as long nor as wide as that of the F-14. One of the
reasons was the need to squeeze all the 30+ "black boxes" (and these also
include no less but four large displays put into the cockpit) of the AWG-9A
into the airframe: these were distributed ahead, around, and - of course -
inside the cockpit. The AWG-9A simply had a much more volumen (and
capabillities) than the APG-63, and it needed the second crew-member to
operate it.

Don't get me wrong, but if these are not the reasons for the huge size of
the cockpit on the F-14, then I don't know what else should have been?

Doing anything similar with any other type would not function for several
reasons. When designing the F-15, the USAF actually wanted to have an
aircraft like the F/A-18 later became, a dogfighter and a one-seater.

That is precisely what General Bellis and the F-15 design team created
in the F-15A, a world-class maneuverability dog-fighter and a single
seater. There was never anything else under consideration.

Nobody said anything else about the final F-15. I was talking about the size
as devised by the original FX request.

Only
the shock from the appearance of the MiG-25 caused them to let the F-15
become as large as fast as it become, in order to be able to intercept
Foxbats.

Hardly. The Eagle planform was heavily governed by the size of TabVee
shelters. The footprint of the aircraft fits very closely over the
footprint of the F-4. Intercept of the Foxbat was clearly a missile
matter and not one of aircraft performance. Early detection, long
range weapons and good intercept geometry were paramount. The speed of
the F-15 both initially and in the end product closely parallels the
top speed of the existing front-line fighters--just a bit over M-2.

The footprint was of course to fit that of the F-4. But from what I read
about the history of F-15's the original idea was rather to get something
about the size of the later F-18, and certainly not planned to fly Mach 2.5.
These requirements were not the specifications that can be found in the
original FX. They were added after the Demodedovo '67, when at some stage
calls became known for the FX to become capable of Mach 3, in order to
directly match the Foxbat. Only resistance from the group that was running
the project kept the dogfighting capability as one of main requirements.

Ed, hell, you've been the you know better than anybody here how much
attention was the USAF paying to air-combat being a part of the syllabus for
its pilots in the late 1960s - and also most of the early 1970s. The
interest was actually 0. Even such immensely important projects like
"dogfight Sparrow", Combat Tree and the AIM-9J were only half-heartedly
done....

Also, if you don't mind, but if the long-range weapons were one of the
matters considered "paramount", then the F-15 armed with AIM-7Es (F was
still a distant future at the time) was definitely an underdog compared to
both, the YF-12 and the F-14. Actually, until the APG-63 was improved the
F-14 could fire even AIM-9s from a longer range than the F-15...

Clearly, the F-14 with its "long claws" would have been even better
for this task, but there was no way the USAF would buy a USN fighter
(again,
like it did in the case of the F-4).

The F-14 was optimized for fleet air defense. It was designed for the
interceptor role. The F-15 was designed as a tactical fighter for air
superiority. There is a considerable difference in the detail of the
two missions. It shouldn't be construed as a question of service
rivalry.

Well, theoretically not. But, in fact it was so. For example, the USAF FX
DCP (Development Concept Paper) from 1969 concluded that the "VFX is not
able to meet this requirement" (the requirement for the FX). Given that
neither the FX or VFX flew at the time they not only couldn't possibly know,
but then - if I we bring back the "paramount" aspect of long-range weapons -
the FX could've been dropped straight away.

Besides, while the final result of the F-14 became a plane "optimized for
fleet air defense" - this was foremost so by purpose, i.e. how the USN
intended to use it and how it trained its Tomcat crews, not by design.
Originally, the F-14 was designed as a dogfighter, and - despite all the
explanations around - even the F-14A with its nifty TF-30s was superior in
maneuver to the F-15 at anything but high-subsonic speeds.

(From discussions with pilots that flew both planes, however, it appears
that the F-14 was not as easy to fly successfully in the dogfight as the
F-15 (even if the weapons system of the original F-15A had quite some
problems with the man-machine interface, when compared to the F-14), and
this, as well as different subsequent upgrades in the Eagle cockpit is what
then "made" the F-15 being "accepted as a better dogfighter".)

The F-16, on the contrary, was designed as a simple dogfighter,
day-fighter
armed with the gun and Sidewinders only. Only after it entered service
was
any separation testing for the use of Mk.82783/84 bombs done. All the
complex avionics was added to it even at a later stage.

Sorry, but no. The F-16 (actually the lightweight fighter competition)
was to build a replacement for the F-4 fleet. The F-15 air superiority
fighter did the air/air mission and from its inception the F-16/F-17
programs were designed for ground attack. The "complex avionics" of
the CCIP conventional weapons release system were incorporated in the
first production A models.

The CCIP was included in the original weapons system, no dispute. But that
was not what I was talking about. As first, eiher the USAF never completed
separation testing for the Mk.82/83/84s on F-16s, or it never revealed the
results of this to quite a few of its foreign customers. Don't know what was
the reason, but I've heard several Israelis and the Dutch complaining they
had to complete the job (and this as late as the late-1980s). As second,
what I meant with "complex avionics" was certainly not the CCIP-mode: that's
something even the F-14A has got almost 20 years before any kind of
"Bombcat" thinking became known within the USN. "Complex avionics", IMHO, is
such stuff like APG-66-modes enabling the support of AIM-7s, and then
especially the LANTRIN, HARM-compatibility etc...

Bear in mind, Ed, that most of the youngsters today run around thinking the
F-16 was originally designed as what such versions like Block 40/50/60 are
today - which was definitely not something ever dreamed about in the early
1970s.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585