No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:


A few USAF F/A-18s should get the point across.

I don't understand your fascination with USAF F/A-18s. It is most
assuredly a non-stealthy airframe and one not dedicated or even very
well suited to the air dominance mission. IOW, it isn't an A/A fighter
by any stretch.

Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with the
F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the
F-22 to conclusion. Right now, other than cancellation, there's nothing
really forcing their hand, and (whether you agree or not) IMO
cancellation at this late stage is improbable, and they know it.

It's nice to have an interpreter aboard. Occasionally the terseness at
the end of the long repeated, multiple-entry threads leaves me
confused. Might be an age thing.

Just curious, what is your recollection of the debate surrounding
USAF's buy of the F-4 ?

Not an age thing, I guess. I'm not as old as you accuse me of being!

LOL. I did remember however that they were fairly new to the fleet
at about the same time you must have been in UPT.


The USAF F-4 came on board in FY 62. The operational airplanes were
entering the inventory in CY '64, the same year I went on active duty.
I didn't know or hear much about the debate as lowly 2/Lt. I was just
happy to go to UPT at Willy and then get my first choice of assignment
and go to Nellis. At Willy, when I saw my first F-4 up close on the
transient flight line I was awed at its size. At Nellis, when I taxied
by the Weapons School flight line in my Thunderchief, it looked a bit
smaller.

What I was getting at (viz using F/A-18'S for USAF ) was that the F-4
was the last Navy fighter to be bought by the Air Force. There must
have been a lot of "discussion" of using a Navy a/c in a force that
was essentially century series dedicated USAF platforms.
IIRC, the NIH factor was a component of the decision to buy another
solely USAF a/c, the F-15. How much of a component is still argued.

This bears no relation to the F-35, which is purpose-built from the
get go to be a multi-service a/c.

snip good stuff

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:52:01 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The USAF F-4 came on board in FY 62. The operational airplanes were
entering the inventory in CY '64, the same year I went on active duty.
I didn't know or hear much about the debate as lowly 2/Lt. I was just
happy to go to UPT at Willy and then get my first choice of assignment
and go to Nellis. At Willy, when I saw my first F-4 up close on the
transient flight line I was awed at its size. At Nellis, when I taxied
by the Weapons School flight line in my Thunderchief, it looked a bit
smaller.

What I was getting at (viz using F/A-18'S for USAF ) was that the F-4
was the last Navy fighter to be bought by the Air Force. There must
have been a lot of "discussion" of using a Navy a/c in a force that
was essentially century series dedicated USAF platforms.
IIRC, the NIH factor was a component of the decision to buy another
solely USAF a/c, the F-15. How much of a component is still argued.

From my perspective, I never heard the NIH argument, although it might
have occurred in some buildings without square corners. The real
"problems" didn't surface until well after purchase decision--the
issue of "missile-only platform" that was proving unsuitable in the
WVR fighting environment of SEA and the rapidly escalating
dissatisfaction of the PSO community without a clearly defined career
track.

As for "last Navy fighter" you probably are overlooking the A-7D
purchase.

Actually in both instances the AF got a lot of design input (not the
basic airframe geometry, but the systems). The F-4 got INS for example
and lots of bomb-carriage capability along with "special weapons"
wiring and control. The A-7 in AF livery came with a "death dot"
bombing system that was vastly superior to the A-7B of the USN.

In fact, as time droned on, both services can be said to have
benefitted from the development of the airplane in sister service use.

This bears no relation to the F-35, which is purpose-built from the
get go to be a multi-service a/c.

Well, in one sense, yes--but more like the F-84E/F/G than the
F-111A/B. In other words, separate but equal airframes that are
inherently different but similarly shaped.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8