The term "Fighter"

On 23 Dec 2003 19:54:25 -0800, (David L. Pulver)
wrote:

These days, "fighter" usually means "A single or dual-seat fast mover
capable or at least originally designed in some variant or other for
reasonably effectively performing an air superiority or intercept
mission, regardless of what else it can do" the reasonably-effectively
part translating into "at least mach 1, carries air-to-air missiles,
and ideally supersonic with a air-intercept radar" and the "what else"
usually being strike, recon, and SEAD.

Invariably in this discussion we get a melding of the historic and the
current, insertion of an occasional red herring and a convolution of
USN and USAF terminology.

In USAF terminology, a "fighter" usually means a tactical fast mover.
It probably has good agility and a sensor suite to detect enemy
airborne targets, but for the last thirty years has been acknowledged
as an aircraft that will seldom encounter a credible air/air threat.

"Air superiority is something a fighter pilot does on his way to and
from the target." I said it, and I still believe it.


There are instances when an aircraft receives a fighter *designation*
for unusual reasons (the F-117), but these are anomalies. Also F-111,
which was supposed to be a fighter but didn't work out as one, and
such.

The F-111 was supposed to be a tactical fast mover. See above for USAF
tradition.

Also, USAF tactical aviation doesn't like calling anything an "attack"
aircraft so aside from the A-10 (clearly not a real modern fighter,
being subsonic, even if it can carry a few sidewinders!) we get things
like F-105 ("It's a fighter because it's got a gun and is supersonic,
even if it's not used as one").

Now you're on the fighting side of me. The F-105, designed in the
early '50s and fielded operationally with the D model in 1959 (FY '58
production), was single seat, single engine and very capable air/air.
It had an air/air radar mode, lead computing gun sight, good agility
(+8.67/-3.0 G) and was sidewinder capable. If fought with an
understanding of the aircraft's P-sub-s and V-G diagrams, it was
pretty serious air/air. You might want to review the number of MiG
kills by F-105s for verification.

Oh, and did I mention that killing MiGs was something we did on our
way to and from the target?


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

"Errol Cavit" wrote in message ...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
snip

But as the dedicated air superiority fighters started having to double
as attack aircraft the now idiotic F/A designation is applied to
purpose-built multirole aircraft like the F/A 18 Hornet and F/A 22
Raptor while the multirole capable F-16 Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle
remain under the F designation.
I think our designation system is in need of redefinition.

No, it needs for the system to be followed. There is an excuse for the
F/A-18,

Actually the new revised designation of the erstwhile F/A-18E is now
the FREAK-18E; the changed designation being considered more
reflective of the range of capabilities that aircraft possess -
fighter, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, attack and aerial
refueling.

but not for F/A-22 (_reason_ yes, excuse no). AIUI the system
defines aircraft with F and A roles as F's

Why not use
an MR designation for MultiRole aircraft?

You mean like the M? e.g. MH-53E, MH-60R, MH-60S. Don't know if it can be
used as the 'primary' letter, and can't be bothered looking in the FAQ to
check.

I suggest the following
changes:

snip suggested over-long designation system

Currently Q is drone. Some changes in this area would probably be useful
before too long.

In article , David L.
Pulver wrote:

Also, USAF tactical aviation doesn't like calling anything an "attack"
aircraft so aside from the A-10 (clearly not a real modern fighter,
being subsonic, even if it can carry a few sidewinders!) we get things
like F-105 ("It's a fighter because it's got a gun and is supersonic,
even if it's not used as one"). The Harrier and such get in the way a
bit, but Sea Harrier at least has an air-intercept radar, while the
other types are more attack aircraft

Well, in the US, Harriers are designated AV-8 - so attack, not fighter.
In the UK, they are Harrier GR.x (x being the mark number), for ground
attack and recce - so, still not fighters. The Sea harrier is designated
FA.2, since it's got a realistic air combat role.

Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
To err is human
To forgive is not
Air Force Policy

Well, in the US, Harriers are designated AV-8 - so attack, not fighter.
In the UK, they are Harrier GR.x (x being the mark number), for ground
attack and recce - so, still not fighters. The Sea harrier is designated
FA.2, since it's got a realistic air combat role.

I think that if the USAF had adopted the harrier, it would have an F
designation, or at the very least F/A. The USAF simply doesn't like to
recognize the concept of an attack aircraft.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Well, in the US, Harriers are designated AV-8 - so attack, not fighter.
In the UK, they are Harrier GR.x (x being the mark number), for ground
attack and recce - so, still not fighters. The Sea harrier is designated
FA.2, since it's got a realistic air combat role.

I think that if the USAF had adopted the harrier, it would have an F
designation, or at the very least F/A. The USAF simply doesn't like to
recognize the concept of an attack aircraft.

all the best -- Dan Ford


With the system used "U.S. Joint Aircraft Designation System of 1962",
faults aside, how does the USAF have this choice?

Regards,

Tex Houston

With the system used "U.S. Joint Aircraft Designation System of 1962",
faults aside, how does the USAF have this choice?

By not adopting the aircraft, or by redesigning and redesignating it.

Has the USAF adopted an attack aircraft since the A-10 was rammed down
its throat?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 05:25:11 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:

Has the USAF adopted an attack aircraft since the A-10 was rammed down
its throat?

all the best -- Dan Ford

Difficult to let that urban legend prevail without comment. The A-10
was definitely not rammed down any metaphorical AF throat. It was the
product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
an updated A-1; an airplane with high survivability, close-in
accuracy, heavy payload, and good anti-armor capability. The value of
such an aircraft had been conclusively demonstrated in SEA and the
application for such a type in European NATO Fulda Gap scenarios was
obvious. (The initial deployment to Ben****ers/Woodbridge with six
FOLs in Germany is illustrative.)

Repeat again after me:

1. The USAF recognizes CAS as a mission.
2. The A-10 is a valued aircraft (despite the fact that lots of
fighter pilots think Vipers or Eagles are more glamorous.)
3. Folks who fly or have flown the A-10 like and respect it.
4. It has been very successful over the years.
5. The USAF recognizes CAS as a mission.

Lather, rinse, repeat.



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

It was the
product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
an updated A-1;

Which competition was rammed down the Air Force's throat! Crikey, Ed,
have you looked at Campbell's The Warthog and the Combat Air Support
Debate ?

www.warbirdforum.com/warthog.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:15:34 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


It was the
product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
an updated A-1;

Which competition was rammed down the Air Force's throat! Crikey, Ed,
have you looked at Campbell's The Warthog and the Combat Air Support
Debate ?

all the best -- Dan Ford

I'm always reluctant to base an interpretation of a complex issue on a
single revisionist author, particularly one that writes more than 20
years after the events. I recently mentioned to BUFDRVR that
Clodfelter on Linebacker II is not the only opinion as well.

I was active duty during the period of adaptation of the A-10,
including both the design competition and the operational deployment
in Europe, where I was in Hq USAFE. Later, I went through AGOS and
served as ALO to the 2nd Bde, 4th ID where we employed and integrated
the A-10. I also had the opportunity to participate in defensive A/A
training for the A-10 RTU at Davis-Monthan. And, after retirement from
active duty, I worked for Northrop Aircraft Division, where we still
had the A-9 files available for program review.

Who was doing the throat ramming? It certainly wasn't Congress, which
has little clue about operational requirements. Was it the Army? They
have been a co-equal since 1947, so they weren't in a position to ram.
AF recognized a need for a CAS aircraft, an anti-armor platform, a
long-endurance, heavy lifter for battlefield support and a replacement
SAR aircraft. It all came bundled in the A-10.


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

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:47:17 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

And, after retirement from
active duty, I worked for Northrop Aircraft Division, where we still
had the A-9 files available for program review.


Having has access to the paperwork for the A9, how did it rate IYHO ?
Interesting that the otherside went for a similar planform for the Su-25.

greg
--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.