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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Poland: French Missile Report Was Wrong | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 8 | October 7th 03 10:54 PM |
How did the Iranians get the Phoenix to work? | Ragnar | Military Aviation | 22 | October 2nd 03 02:49 AM |
IPC in a Simulator? Phoenix area.. | Anonymous | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | August 28th 03 11:31 PM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |
Rafael's AIM-AIR IR Missile Countermeasure | JT | Military Aviation | 8 | July 13th 03 03:41 AM |