AIM-54 Phoenix missile

Ed posted
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.

John Carrier elaborated:

I'll disagree on this point. The F-16/17 were designed to provide a cheaper
alternative and augment the expensive F-14/15 (Remember this buzz phrase:
"hi lo mix?"). They were originally designed as less complex air
superiority aircraft ... simple dogfighters ... with lesser radar and
(any?) BVR capability. The mud missions were designed in later.

I give the nod to John's post in strict terms of how John Boyd
proposed the LWF...*no* radar, heaters and gun...then limted radar,
heaters, gun.

But as Ed says, by the time the USAF had the funding for the winner of
the F-16/F-17 competition the *program* was for an F-4 replacement. GD
publicity photos of Full Scale Development (FSD) aircraft show the
array of surface attack weapons planned. And from the gitgo (Jan 1979)
the 16th TFTS at Hill was doing the air-to-mud thing. And the primary
DOC of all the F-4 units (in 1980) re-equipping to the Viper was
air-to-mud.

Juvat

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Drewe
Manton blurted out:

They were actually mounted *on* the main undercarriage doors! Must've been
excellent fun loading them. . .

In Detail & Scale Vol 3 by Bert Kinzey...page 58 and 59 there are
photos showing three different carriage tests. Wingtip, stations 3 &
7, and as you noted on the main gear doors. The only test firing
picture shows this last configuration.

One of the pictures shows an old style wingtank (looks like the type
carried by F-100s, but inverted) and the gear mounted AIM-7s.

All pictures are of YF-16s...small radome.

Juvat

Now, given that, I'll have to argue that the state of the ergonomic
art at the time was that an effective single seat cockpit could be
designed to manage the sensor/weapons suite. Certainly the success of
both the Eagle and the Viper seem to confirm this.

If a complex weapons system like the B-2 can be very effectively employed by
just 2 crew members, I have little doubt that the fighter mission can be
very well flown by a single seater with today's technology. And that always
prompts me to scratch my head in disbelief at the F/A-18F Super-Hornet. The
Navy is replacing the Tomcat squadrons with like numbers of squadrons with
the single-seater (E) and twin-seater (F). And the expected enhanced rear
crew station for the Super-Bug is somewhere in the future... meaning that
double-seater Super-Bugs, at this date, basically carry a passenger on the
back. It might be a highly qualified and capable passenger, but the added
value over the single-seater is minimal and doesn't compensate the fuel it
looses. Maybe wiser heads can correct me...

_____________
José Herculano

I don't think I could categorize the Falcon AAM series as anything other
than worthless. Seem to recall they were used very briefly in Nam and were
found to be incapable of shooting anything down. Think about it- if the
Sparrow (mediocre at best) was seen as a big improvement, how lousy must
Falcon have been.

--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms CA USA

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

To be honest, no. Certainly improved thrust (and less
stalling/roll-back) should translate into better ratios. I was out of
the business by the time the new engines came on line. Of course, that
also means F-15C models with better performance as well and AIM-120
for longer range shots from the AF side.

The F-14B and D gained a whole lot in thrust-to-weight, but more than that,
the bird can be flown agressively at the edge. TF-30 equiped F-14A have a
whole lot of maneuvering limitations due to very sensitive engine responses
to airflow variations on the intakes. A lot of accidents have officially
happened due to engine stalls while maneuvering, and the widely spaced
engine exhausts on the Turkey led to assimetric loads outside the aircraft
flying parameters... the TF-30 may have been a nice engine for the F-111,
but for a fighter like the Tomcat was inadequate on the extreme. The F110
doesn't mind those airflow changes at all.

The F-14D was tested with AIM-120. A "cost-saving" measure prevented the
fleet from getting the minimal wiring and software changes for AIM-120
deployment.
_____________
José Herculano

I don't think I could categorize the Falcon AAM series as anything other
than worthless. Seem to recall they were used very briefly in Nam and were
found to be incapable of shooting anything down. Think about it- if the
Sparrow (mediocre at best) was seen as a big improvement, how lousy must
Falcon have been.

Although the Falcon had both radar and infrared variants, the usage on the
Phantom was the infrared one, and the replacement was the Sidewinder. The
Falcon had at least one kill in Vietnam, but was hell to use. The seeker
head had to be cooled, IIRC, at least one minute before launch, and then had
a small window of employment... either shoot it then, or carry it around as
lugage. It had some advantages over the Sidewinder in its intended role -
interceptor missile, bomber-shooter. It was carried for many years
afterwards in the belly of the F-106. But has a tactical fighter missile, it
was better to forget it.
_____________
José Herculano

Over the years while I was running exercises for the NATO Southern
Region at USAFE Hq, I handled a lot of USAF/USN exercises and the
outcome of Eagle-vs-Toms was always the same. The Toms got the
long-range intercept credits and the Eagles got lots of video of Toms
with pipper-burns.

To be honest, no. Certainly improved thrust (and less
stalling/roll-back) should translate into better ratios. I was out of
the business by the time the new engines came on line. Of course, that
also means F-15C models with better performance as well and AIM-120
for longer range shots from the AF side.

Got tapped by a pair of F-15's when I was on a non-tanker supported mission
(as far as I knew) of indeterminate duration. Stayed in military and did my
duty as an uncooperative target. Not much later I got my tanker and an EAT,
found my nemesis and returned the favor of the pipper burns.

In the ACM arena, a well and patiently flown F-15 was certainly superior to
the Turkey, but not as much as you might think. The larger engines erase
that advantage.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
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.

I'll disagree on this point. The F-16/17 were designed to provide a
cheaper
alternative and augment the expensive F-14/15 (Remember this buzz phrase:
"hi lo mix?"). They were originally designed as less complex air
superiority aircraft ... simple dogfighters ... with lesser radar and
(any?) BVR capability. The mud missions were designed in later.

R / John

That is pretty much as I remember it. The YF-16 (General Dynamics 401) and
YF-17 (Northrop P 530) were originally part of the LWF (Light Weight
Fighter) program. This was to demonstrate what could be built and at what
cost. The goal was a smaller and cheaper fighter to augment the large and
expensive F-15. The LWF program was only to see what could be built and was
not a search for a new aircraft. Early in 1974 the ACF (Air Combat Fighter)
program came into being. with the YF-16 being announced the winner in Dec
1974. There was also a lot of interest from NATO countries looking for a
replacement for the F104. At this point it was not known how successful the
F-16 could be modified for the ground attack role.

The Navy liked this idea so much that they started the VFX program in 1974,
but so the Air Force couldn't say the Navy copied them, the Navy chose the
F-18 (larger development of the YF-17) in early 1975. Sometime in late 1976
Northrop started a program to find a buyer for its land based F-17 Cobra.

And that's the truth as I know it.

Red

"José Herculano" wrote in message
...
I don't think I could categorize the Falcon AAM series as anything other
than worthless. Seem to recall they were used very briefly in Nam and
were
found to be incapable of shooting anything down. Think about it- if the
Sparrow (mediocre at best) was seen as a big improvement, how lousy must
Falcon have been.

Although the Falcon had both radar and infrared variants, the usage on the
Phantom was the infrared one, and the replacement was the Sidewinder. The
Falcon had at least one kill in Vietnam, but was hell to use. The seeker
head had to be cooled, IIRC, at least one minute before launch, and then
had
a small window of employment... either shoot it then, or carry it around
as
lugage. It had some advantages over the Sidewinder in its intended role -
interceptor missile, bomber-shooter. It was carried for many years
afterwards in the belly of the F-106. But has a tactical fighter missile,
it
was better to forget it.
_____________
José Herculano

The Falcon had a higher speed and longer range. Almost double that of the
AIM 9 during the Vietanm years.

Yeah and the AIM 26A had a slightly more powerful warhead. ;-)

So did the 26B.

Red Rider

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:34:51 GMT, Juvat
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Drewe
Manton blurted out:

They were actually mounted *on* the main undercarriage doors! Must've been
excellent fun loading them. . .

In Detail & Scale Vol 3 by Bert Kinzey...page 58 and 59 there are
photos showing three different carriage tests. Wingtip, stations 3 &
7, and as you noted on the main gear doors. The only test firing
picture shows this last configuration.

One of the pictures shows an old style wingtank (looks like the type
carried by F-100s, but inverted) and the gear mounted AIM-7s.

All pictures are of YF-16s...small radome.

Juvat


There's probably some photos in there of the YF-16 with an F101 engine
in it. The lighter weight (of the aircraft) and more thrust than a
-229 made it pretty impressive I'd guess.