By: Sens
- 27th February 2010 at 21:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By the way , I am not old enough to have lived through the era of the 50s and 60s.
Despite that you have sensed the doctrine and related weapons of that time-scale.
Compared to that the Vietnam-War and some others were local wars, when the lessons of that rised new intrest for a conventional warfare capability and the related weapons.
By: H_K
- 28th February 2010 at 02:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry if I was curt with my previous reply, H_K, I should have explained rather than snap. You are applying current operational doctrine to the different reality that was the 50s and 60s.
During that period of the cold war, the U.S. and certainly Germany which would be ground zero in any nuclear war, operated under the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine. This calls for massive nuclear retaliation to any attack. There are only two types of aircraft needed for this scenario, one type to prevent the enemy from delivering their nuclear ordinance to your position ( a point defence interceptor ), and a second type to deliver a single special weapon ( that's what nuclear was called in the 50s/60s ). Since the chance of intercepting their aircraft are slimmer and the hope is to prevent an attack in the first place with retaliation capability, you may as well have more delivery aircraft than interceptors. You'll note that even the U.S. didn't have any other types than interceptors and strikers until the 70s.
The F-104 fit the bill perfectly for smaller air forces, not so much for USAF which needed a long range interceptor ( quest for F-108 ) and long range delivery, read heavy and costly. For Germany and the other nations who bought the F-104, it provided a low level, stable and fast delivery vehicle as well as an excellent pint defence interceptor. Under their doctrine they had no need for a 'dog-fighter'. The only aircraft, if any, that did the job as well were a lot heavier and thus more costly.
Up until 1968-1970 Germany was developing F-104 replacements which were optimised for low level delivery, such as VJ-101 C/D/E, VAK-191B ( see the size of those wings, makes F-104 look huge ), and other developements leading to MRCA. The shift from MAD to graduated response finally dawned on the U.S. about 1965 when they drafted the requiremnt that led to the F-15, after hard learned lessons in Vietnam. A few years later Germany and the rest of Europe followed suit.
The F-104, designed by Clarence Johnson to the operational requirements of the time was the smallest airframe possible which met all performance requirements, and as such was cost a effective solution for many air forces ( although not so much for U.S. who wanted longer range ), and the reason so many were sold.
No worries. ;) I was mostly jumping at your claim that the F-8 Crusader had good landing characteristics, which I don't agree with. Also, IIRC adding 600lbs extra thrust (going from the J79-GE-3 to the J79-GE-7 for example) would typically have a major impact on performance, particularly climb rates and acceleration. Certainly did for the Super Tiger.
I agree with your analysis of the doctrine of the time and why the F-104 was well suited to it. Though IMHO this doctrine was obsolete shortly after 1959, when Soviets fielded IRBMs, and only became more so as the Soviet ballistic missile fleet gained numbers and intercontinental range. The writing was definitely on the wall for tactical nuclear strike - I don't understand why the USAF felt a need later on for the FB-111... :confused:
By: Bager1968
- 28th February 2010 at 04:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about a link about that?
The Russians did reveal that the F-5E was superior to their MiG-21s after evaluation. There was something available between the F-86 and F-16.
Not for very long:
The first F-5E (71-1417) was rolled out at Hawthorne on June 23, 1972 and was sent to Edwards AFB for flight testing The aircraft took off on its maiden flight on August 11, 1972, with Hank Chouteau at the controls.
On April 4, 1973, the first Tiger II reached the 425th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron at Chandler AFB in Arizona. This squadron was assigned the task of training for crews that had acquired the F-5E under the Mutual Assistance Pact (MAP).
The prototype YF-16 (serial number 72-1567) was rolled out at Fort Worth on December 13, 1973. The YF-16 was air freighted by C-5A to Edwards AFB on January 8, 1974. Its first flight was an unintended short hop around the pattern on January 21, 1974 at the hands of test pilot Phil Oestricher. (The first official flight took place February 2, 1974, again with Phil Oestricher at the controls.)
On January 13, 1975, Air Force Secretary John McLucas announced that the YF-16 had been selected as the winner of the ACF contest.
The first F-16A/Bs were delivered to the 388th TFW at Hill AFB in Utah in January 1979.
So, first flight of the F-5E was 18 months before first flight of the YF-16, and first delivery of an F-5E to an "operational" USAF unit was just under 6 years before the F-16A.
By: Bager1968
- 28th February 2010 at 04:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Note also that the F-15, designed for primarily Air-to-Air combat, and for dogfighting, preceded the F-16 into service.
The first F-15A Eagle to be delivered to an operational USAF unit was TF-15A 73-0108, formally accepted by the 555th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron of the 58th Tactical Training Wing at Luke AFB, Arizona on November 4, 1974 in a ceremony presided over by President Gerald Ford.
This is only 19 months after delivery of the first F-5E.
By: H_K
- 28th February 2010 at 05:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I found some interesting comments on the F11F Tiger from George Spangenberg, who apparently was a big shot within NAVAIR at the time. He's definitely in the Super Tiger camp and doesn't have much good to say about the F-104. :p
RAUSA: The F-11F you say was a good design?
SPANGENBERG: It was an excellent aerodynamic design. It just didn't have the engine that it should have had right from the beginning. Grumman couldn't really afford to try to achieve the level of performance that the Navy was likely to want for the next fighter so it was really regarded as an interim step between a truly supersonic fighter. It was supersonic but just mach1.1 or 1.2, something like that. It was regarded as an interim fighter but the aerodynamics of the airplane were excellent and it was a well laid out design. Didn't have quite enough fuel in it.
(...)SPANGENBERG: Yeah. It was a famous story for awhile. The main reason the airplane didn't go anyplace was the engine was a grand flop basically. There was really no engine in this country --
RAUSA: Which engine was it?
SPANGENBERG: It was an afterburner version of the British Sapphire. Curtiss Wright had the license to build the engine. It existed as a non-afterburning engine but for the F11F they had to develop an afterburner to put on it. That development lagged and they had engine development problems. The first couple of airplanes as I recall flew without the afterburner and then gradually they got the thing running. The designation was J-65. It was not a good engine. At the end of the program J-79s were put into the airplane on an experimental kind of a basis. Grumman had I think two of the airplanes and it was a Mach 2 plus airplane and a very high performance machine.
In the international arena Grumman tried to sell it to Japan in lieu of the F-104s and there were sales efforts in Germany as well. Both of those countries would have been well advised to buy the F11F-2 we called it then, Tiger King. I remember Gordon Ochenrider who was Grumman's sales guy at the time. It was before he got to Washington. Gordon would come back from his attempts to sell it and he was just completely naive in the international field. The story was that he wasn't paying the bribes that others were, trying to handle it honestly. He didn't sell the airplane and it was a far better airplane than the one against which he was competing. My opinion.
(Note that the main issue was range, which should have been less of a problem on Super Tigers since the J79 had 7% better SFC in dry thrust and it could have carried 3x larger drop tanks.)
By: michelf
- 28th February 2010 at 09:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-104.....
was cost a effective solution for many air forces ( although not so much for U.S. who wanted longer range ), and the reason so many were sold.
Hmm... I think Lockheed's approach to financial affairs may have been more responsible for sales of the 104 in Europe at the time than the performance of the airframe itself.
As Over G says... 'scammed'
It was fine for its intended USAF role...with the usual limits, but it was not as good as its sales imply.
By: pagen01
- 28th February 2010 at 12:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sens, no links required, just look at the actual history of procurement and operations of the various types.
I don't get why the F-104 keeps coming up, it was fast delivery truck, all be it very small, it was a useless straight fighter, and therefore out of the scope of this thread.
It is drifting away from the naval question, but I guess American fighter design in general is important for backgound reasons.
By: alfakilo
- 28th February 2010 at 14:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Note also that the F-15, designed for primarily Air-to-Air combat, and for dogfighting, preceded the F-16 into service.
The USAF Fighter Weapons School had a periodical called the Fighter Weapons Review that published articles and info relevant to fighter matters in the USAF and elsewhere. Back in the day before either the F-15 or F-16 became operational, I remember a cover for the FWR that was an illustration of what was seen at that time as the days to come...
...and it was a flight of F-15s loaded with "wall-to-wall" bombs being escorted by a flight of F-16s carrying nothing but AIM-9s. I've always got a laugh out of how that idea was 180 degrees off how things actually worked out.
By: alfakilo
- 28th February 2010 at 14:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't get why the F-104 keeps coming up, it was fast delivery truck, all be it very small, it was a useless straight fighter, and therefore out of the scope of this thread.
It keeps coming up so that folks who don't know jack about the airplane can have a chance to display their ignorance.
By: sferrin
- 28th February 2010 at 14:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sens, no links required, just look at the actual history of procurement and operations of the various types.
I don't get why the F-104 keeps coming up, it was fast delivery truck, all be it very small, it was a useless straight fighter, and therefore out of the scope of this thread.
According to actual F-104 pilots it was FAR from "useless".
By: sferrin
- 28th February 2010 at 14:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's pre-1968 and the Mig-21 threat is alive and real. The F-4J hasn't earned its combat wings in Vietnam yet. As Adm. David L. McDonald, Chief of Naval Operations, which naval fighter would you have liked to go into combat with?
Here's the list of contenders:
F-8E Crusader
F-4B Phantom
F8U-3 Super Crusader
F11F-1F Super Tiger
F-8E Crusader
Pros: Gun armament, maneuverability, cheap (<$1MM), ability to operate from Essex-class carriers
Cons: Inferior climb/acceleration performance to Mig-21, range/endurance (no wet pylons), avionics, A2G capability (only 2 pylons), poor landing characteristics
F-4B Phantom
Pros: 2-man crew & big radar, climb/acceleration performance, A2G payload
Cons: No gun, poor maneuverability, poor range/endurance without drop tanks (only 1h CAP), expensive ($2MM), cannot operate from Essex-class carriers
F8U-3 Super Crusader
Pros: Best climb/acceleration performance, gun armament, excellent range/endurance on internal fuel, maneuverability
Cons: Expensive (only 10% less than F-4B), avionics overload (one-man cockpit), poor maintainability, very limited A2G, cannot operate from Essex-class carriers
I'm curious as to why you'd think a single-engine, single-cockpit design would have poor maintainability in comparision to the F-4. Also, I could understand the "limited A2G" if looking at weapon stations compared to the F-4 but I wouldn't consider it poor on an absolute scale. It did have underwing pylons as I recall.
By: alfakilo
- 28th February 2010 at 16:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's pre-1968 and the Mig-21 threat is alive and real. The F-4J hasn't earned its combat wings in Vietnam yet. As Adm. David L. McDonald, Chief of Naval Operations, which naval fighter would you have liked to go into combat with?
Maybe it's time to return to the original post and its original question.
The problem with this question is that it doesn't say what the ground rules are. Were we supposed to frame our answers using the conditions over North Vietnam...or was this a general question?
Because those ground rules define the debate. Regardless of whether or not we are talking about the USN/USMC or the USAF, NV presented us with a combat arena that was a long way away, one where we had little support from GCI, and one where political considerations cut deeply into what we could and could not do.
If we take the question out of the Vietnam scenario, it becomes a whole different matter. Set the stage in a European environment (nuclear or conventional) and the limitations that we had to live with in NV pretty much go away. This means that what were seen as shortcomings of certain aircraft become less so. The dreaded MiG-21 becomes much less a formidable opponent when we don't have one or more arms tied behind our backs.
By: H_K
- 28th February 2010 at 18:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm curious as to why you'd think a single-engine, single-cockpit design would have poor maintainability in comparision to the F-4. Also, I could understand the "limited A2G" if looking at weapon stations compared to the F-4 but I wouldn't consider it poor on an absolute scale. It did have underwing pylons as I recall.
Here's my source on the F8U-3's poor maintainability and poor A2G, from a book on the F-4 Phantom. It also highlights the F8U-3's flying qualities, so seems pretty balanced. By the way, underwing pylons didn't show up on Crusaders until 1962 (F-8E), and they were never operationally capable of carrying drop tanks (drop tanks were "qualified" on the F-8H/J in the late 1960s but operational restrictions prevented squadron use).
"Engineering the F-4 Phantom II: parts into systems", by Glenn E. Bugos
Vought encouraged BuAer to give Raytheon the prime contract to modify its missile control system to the F8U-3. The Raytheon Aero IB AMCS included the APA-128 injection system and a slightly different Westinghouse APQ-74 radar. The nose cylinder, for instance, was too narrow, so Vought wired together modules from around the airframe.
(...) The pilots also rated the aircraft qualitatively, on maneuverability and control (the single-engine F8U-3 was sprighter) and on potential structural weaknesses (like magnesium on the F4H). The F4H cost more to operate during the trials because two engines consumed more fuel. But the F8U-3 required more maintenance time, because Vought had buried its engine deep in its fuselage and failed to federate its electronic equipment. The F4H could indeed carry a variety of weapons on its three hard points, while the F8U-3 had only one.
By 10 September the NPE trials ended with both aircraft easily satisfying their contract guarantees. Again Spangenberg urged the CNO to buy both aircraft , though the F8U-3 flew slightly better: "NPE results indicate the F8U-3 control system to be one of the best yet devised, and the flying qualities to be excellent.
Spangenberg told the CNO, however, that the slightly better speed of the F8U-3 did not outweigh the reliability of the two-seat, twin-engine F4H. Twin engines were, technically, only 20 percent more reliable than one, but Spangenberg thought they enormously boosted morale. Spangenberg Spangenberg more strongly advocated the two-seat concept: "The single seat era is dead, and no more should be initiated. The correctness of this conviction can only be ascertained by getting service experience with truly competitive types. The cost to do this is only 8%." That is, the cost to purchase 382 of the F8U-3s purchased 8 percent fewer (or 352) F4Hs.
The F8U-3 is not only the highest speed aircraft yet produced for naval use but is the best in overall flying qualities. The performance of the contractor in beating his time schedule for development, and in correcting deficiencies as they appeared in flight testing has been outstanding. The F4H-1 development has been less spectacular, but its schedule has been met. Its performance is excellent and flying qualities satisfactory. The requirements decision made in 1955 that a two seat airplane was necessary appears controlling. A single seat airplane offered advantages in cost then, and does now. But with a single aircraft to be produced, it is necessary to procure the design which can do all the jobs which must be done at the time.
By: H_K
- 28th February 2010 at 18:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe it's time to return to the original post and its original question.
The problem with this question is that it doesn't say what the ground rules are. Were we supposed to frame our answers using the conditions over North Vietnam...or was this a general question?
Because those ground rules define the debate. Regardless of whether or not we are talking about the USN/USMC or the USAF, NV presented us with a combat arena that was a long way away, one where we had little support from GCI, and one where political considerations cut deeply into what we could and could not do.
If we take the question out of the Vietnam scenario, it becomes a whole different matter. Set the stage in a European environment (nuclear or conventional) and the limitations that we had to live with in NV pretty much go away. This means that what were seen as shortcomings of certain aircraft become less so. The dreaded MiG-21 becomes much less a formidable opponent when we don't have one or more arms tied behind our backs.
Good post. Here's my take on what the requirements should have been circa 1957, based on a high-low fighter mix (similar concept to the F-14 + F/A-18 mix in the 1980s):
"Low end" general purpose fighter
- Excellent escort / fighter interdiction capability (i.e. gun, acceleration, maneuverability)
- Good air-to-ground capability (at least as good payload/range as latter Skyhawks, Bullpup avionics etc.)
- Secondary fleet air defense capability vs. Soviet bombers (ideally provision for fitting avionics boxes for continuous wave illumination on an "as needed" basis for limited Sparrow capability)
With these ground rules, the F8U Crusader or its alternatives (F11F-1F Super Tiger, F5D Skylancer) should have had a greater emphasis on air-to-ground and drop tank capability, which the F8U lacked. The F4H Phantom only became capable of performing both high and low end roles in the late 1960s, with the F-4J and the benefit of more reliable missiles.
By: pagen01
- 28th February 2010 at 20:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to actual F-104 pilots it was FAR from "useless".
Take your time, read my post thoroughly, then come back and quote me properly.
As the original question is re-emphasised, I still think the Vixen was right up there with the American choices, being second to the Phantom practically speaking (Super Tiger and Skylancer not seeing service). As a high level interceptor for dealing with the then perceived soviet bomber threat, being just fast enough, plenty of range, high altitude manouverability, nav controlled target tracking, and a capable weapons load out. It was viceless at both ends of its speed range, all be it transonic.
Low level it was a useful fast striker, but you probably wouldn't want to get in a MiG mix up with it.
Be good to see some details and figures on the Etendard, to fairly compare to the other types mentioned.
By: Sens
- 28th February 2010 at 20:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm curious as to why you'd think a single-engine, single-cockpit design would have poor maintainability in comparision to the F-4. Also, I could understand the "limited A2G" if looking at weapon stations compared to the F-4 but I wouldn't consider it poor on an absolute scale. It did have underwing pylons as I recall.
A naval fighter does operate far from bases and the own carrier in the most adverse weather conditions some-times. That alone does give the two-crew, two engine F-4B the edge in the 60s.
By: Sens
- 28th February 2010 at 20:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good post. Here's my take on what the requirements should have been circa 1957, based on a high-low fighter mix (similar concept to the F-14 + F/A-18 mix in the 1980s):
"Low end" general purpose fighter
- Excellent escort / fighter interdiction capability (i.e. gun, acceleration, maneuverability)
- Good air-to-ground capability (at least as good payload/range as latter Skyhawks, Bullpup avionics etc.)
- Secondary fleet air defense capability vs. Soviet bombers (ideally provision for fitting avionics boxes for continuous wave illumination on an "as needed" basis for limited Sparrow capability)
With these ground rules, the F8U Crusader or its alternatives (F11F-1F Super Tiger, F5D Skylancer) should have had a greater emphasis on air-to-ground and drop tank capability, which the F8U lacked. The F4H Phantom only became capable of performing both high and low end roles in the late 1960s, with the F-4J and the benefit of more reliable missiles.
With the Corsair II from 1966 something modern was at hand for the "Low end " general purpose fighter.
Posts: 190
By: MigL - 27th February 2010 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By the way , I am not old enough to have lived through the era of the 50s and 60s.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 27th February 2010 at 21:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The link about the answers from the history section is still missing.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 27th February 2010 at 21:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Despite that you have sensed the doctrine and related weapons of that time-scale.
Compared to that the Vietnam-War and some others were local wars, when the lessons of that rised new intrest for a conventional warfare capability and the related weapons.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 28th February 2010 at 02:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No worries. ;) I was mostly jumping at your claim that the F-8 Crusader had good landing characteristics, which I don't agree with. Also, IIRC adding 600lbs extra thrust (going from the J79-GE-3 to the J79-GE-7 for example) would typically have a major impact on performance, particularly climb rates and acceleration. Certainly did for the Super Tiger.
I agree with your analysis of the doctrine of the time and why the F-104 was well suited to it. Though IMHO this doctrine was obsolete shortly after 1959, when Soviets fielded IRBMs, and only became more so as the Soviet ballistic missile fleet gained numbers and intercontinental range. The writing was definitely on the wall for tactical nuclear strike - I don't understand why the USAF felt a need later on for the FB-111... :confused:
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 28th February 2010 at 04:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not for very long:
The first F-5E (71-1417) was rolled out at Hawthorne on June 23, 1972 and was sent to Edwards AFB for flight testing The aircraft took off on its maiden flight on August 11, 1972, with Hank Chouteau at the controls.
On April 4, 1973, the first Tiger II reached the 425th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron at Chandler AFB in Arizona. This squadron was assigned the task of training for crews that had acquired the F-5E under the Mutual Assistance Pact (MAP).
The prototype YF-16 (serial number 72-1567) was rolled out at Fort Worth on December 13, 1973. The YF-16 was air freighted by C-5A to Edwards AFB on January 8, 1974. Its first flight was an unintended short hop around the pattern on January 21, 1974 at the hands of test pilot Phil Oestricher. (The first official flight took place February 2, 1974, again with Phil Oestricher at the controls.)
On January 13, 1975, Air Force Secretary John McLucas announced that the YF-16 had been selected as the winner of the ACF contest.
The first F-16A/Bs were delivered to the 388th TFW at Hill AFB in Utah in January 1979.
So, first flight of the F-5E was 18 months before first flight of the YF-16, and first delivery of an F-5E to an "operational" USAF unit was just under 6 years before the F-16A.
Info is from http://www.joebaugher.com/uscombataircraft.html
Note that JBaugher's sites have been moved to a new host, and the old URLs won't work.
His new home page is http://www.joebaugher.com/
Remember, the previous models of F-5 were ground attack aircraft with a decidedly secondary, minimal, Air-to-Air capability.
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 28th February 2010 at 04:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Note also that the F-15, designed for primarily Air-to-Air combat, and for dogfighting, preceded the F-16 into service.
The first F-15A Eagle to be delivered to an operational USAF unit was TF-15A 73-0108, formally accepted by the 555th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron of the 58th Tactical Training Wing at Luke AFB, Arizona on November 4, 1974 in a ceremony presided over by President Gerald Ford.
This is only 19 months after delivery of the first F-5E.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 28th February 2010 at 05:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I found some interesting comments on the F11F Tiger from George Spangenberg, who apparently was a big shot within NAVAIR at the time. He's definitely in the Super Tiger camp and doesn't have much good to say about the F-104. :p
RAUSA: The F-11F you say was a good design?
SPANGENBERG: It was an excellent aerodynamic design. It just didn't have the engine that it should have had right from the beginning. Grumman couldn't really afford to try to achieve the level of performance that the Navy was likely to want for the next fighter so it was really regarded as an interim step between a truly supersonic fighter. It was supersonic but just mach1.1 or 1.2, something like that. It was regarded as an interim fighter but the aerodynamics of the airplane were excellent and it was a well laid out design. Didn't have quite enough fuel in it.
(...)SPANGENBERG: Yeah. It was a famous story for awhile. The main reason the airplane didn't go anyplace was the engine was a grand flop basically. There was really no engine in this country --
RAUSA: Which engine was it?
SPANGENBERG: It was an afterburner version of the British Sapphire. Curtiss Wright had the license to build the engine. It existed as a non-afterburning engine but for the F11F they had to develop an afterburner to put on it. That development lagged and they had engine development problems. The first couple of airplanes as I recall flew without the afterburner and then gradually they got the thing running. The designation was J-65. It was not a good engine. At the end of the program J-79s were put into the airplane on an experimental kind of a basis. Grumman had I think two of the airplanes and it was a Mach 2 plus airplane and a very high performance machine.
In the international arena Grumman tried to sell it to Japan in lieu of the F-104s and there were sales efforts in Germany as well. Both of those countries would have been well advised to buy the F11F-2 we called it then, Tiger King. I remember Gordon Ochenrider who was Grumman's sales guy at the time. It was before he got to Washington. Gordon would come back from his attempts to sell it and he was just completely naive in the international field. The story was that he wasn't paying the bribes that others were, trying to handle it honestly. He didn't sell the airplane and it was a far better airplane than the one against which he was competing. My opinion.
http://www.georgespangenberg.com/history2.htm
(Note that the main issue was range, which should have been less of a problem on Super Tigers since the J79 had 7% better SFC in dry thrust and it could have carried 3x larger drop tanks.)
Posts: 1,838
By: over G - 28th February 2010 at 06:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 104 was one of the worst enginnering programs ever, why do you euros defend that piece of crap? because your AForces flew it?
Accept it you were scammed , and you were corrupt and stupid enough to let it happen
Posts: 382
By: michelf - 28th February 2010 at 09:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm... I think Lockheed's approach to financial affairs may have been more responsible for sales of the 104 in Europe at the time than the performance of the airframe itself.
As Over G says... 'scammed'
It was fine for its intended USAF role...with the usual limits, but it was not as good as its sales imply.
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 28th February 2010 at 12:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sens, no links required, just look at the actual history of procurement and operations of the various types.
I don't get why the F-104 keeps coming up, it was fast delivery truck, all be it very small, it was a useless straight fighter, and therefore out of the scope of this thread.
It is drifting away from the naval question, but I guess American fighter design in general is important for backgound reasons.
Posts: 523
By: alfakilo - 28th February 2010 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USAF Fighter Weapons School had a periodical called the Fighter Weapons Review that published articles and info relevant to fighter matters in the USAF and elsewhere. Back in the day before either the F-15 or F-16 became operational, I remember a cover for the FWR that was an illustration of what was seen at that time as the days to come...
...and it was a flight of F-15s loaded with "wall-to-wall" bombs being escorted by a flight of F-16s carrying nothing but AIM-9s. I've always got a laugh out of how that idea was 180 degrees off how things actually worked out.
Posts: 523
By: alfakilo - 28th February 2010 at 14:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It keeps coming up so that folks who don't know jack about the airplane can have a chance to display their ignorance.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 28th February 2010 at 14:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to actual F-104 pilots it was FAR from "useless".
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 28th February 2010 at 14:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm curious as to why you'd think a single-engine, single-cockpit design would have poor maintainability in comparision to the F-4. Also, I could understand the "limited A2G" if looking at weapon stations compared to the F-4 but I wouldn't consider it poor on an absolute scale. It did have underwing pylons as I recall.
Posts: 523
By: alfakilo - 28th February 2010 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe it's time to return to the original post and its original question.
The problem with this question is that it doesn't say what the ground rules are. Were we supposed to frame our answers using the conditions over North Vietnam...or was this a general question?
Because those ground rules define the debate. Regardless of whether or not we are talking about the USN/USMC or the USAF, NV presented us with a combat arena that was a long way away, one where we had little support from GCI, and one where political considerations cut deeply into what we could and could not do.
If we take the question out of the Vietnam scenario, it becomes a whole different matter. Set the stage in a European environment (nuclear or conventional) and the limitations that we had to live with in NV pretty much go away. This means that what were seen as shortcomings of certain aircraft become less so. The dreaded MiG-21 becomes much less a formidable opponent when we don't have one or more arms tied behind our backs.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 28th February 2010 at 18:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's my source on the F8U-3's poor maintainability and poor A2G, from a book on the F-4 Phantom. It also highlights the F8U-3's flying qualities, so seems pretty balanced. By the way, underwing pylons didn't show up on Crusaders until 1962 (F-8E), and they were never operationally capable of carrying drop tanks (drop tanks were "qualified" on the F-8H/J in the late 1960s but operational restrictions prevented squadron use).
"Engineering the F-4 Phantom II: parts into systems", by Glenn E. Bugos
Vought encouraged BuAer to give Raytheon the prime contract to modify its missile control system to the F8U-3. The Raytheon Aero IB AMCS included the APA-128 injection system and a slightly different Westinghouse APQ-74 radar. The nose cylinder, for instance, was too narrow, so Vought wired together modules from around the airframe.
(...) The pilots also rated the aircraft qualitatively, on maneuverability and control (the single-engine F8U-3 was sprighter) and on potential structural weaknesses (like magnesium on the F4H). The F4H cost more to operate during the trials because two engines consumed more fuel. But the F8U-3 required more maintenance time, because Vought had buried its engine deep in its fuselage and failed to federate its electronic equipment. The F4H could indeed carry a variety of weapons on its three hard points, while the F8U-3 had only one.
By 10 September the NPE trials ended with both aircraft easily satisfying their contract guarantees. Again Spangenberg urged the CNO to buy both aircraft , though the F8U-3 flew slightly better: "NPE results indicate the F8U-3 control system to be one of the best yet devised, and the flying qualities to be excellent.
Spangenberg told the CNO, however, that the slightly better speed of the F8U-3 did not outweigh the reliability of the two-seat, twin-engine F4H. Twin engines were, technically, only 20 percent more reliable than one, but Spangenberg thought they enormously boosted morale. Spangenberg Spangenberg more strongly advocated the two-seat concept: "The single seat era is dead, and no more should be initiated. The correctness of this conviction can only be ascertained by getting service experience with truly competitive types. The cost to do this is only 8%." That is, the cost to purchase 382 of the F8U-3s purchased 8 percent fewer (or 352) F4Hs.
The F8U-3 is not only the highest speed aircraft yet produced for naval use but is the best in overall flying qualities. The performance of the contractor in beating his time schedule for development, and in correcting deficiencies as they appeared in flight testing has been outstanding. The F4H-1 development has been less spectacular, but its schedule has been met. Its performance is excellent and flying qualities satisfactory. The requirements decision made in 1955 that a two seat airplane was necessary appears controlling. A single seat airplane offered advantages in cost then, and does now. But with a single aircraft to be produced, it is necessary to procure the design which can do all the jobs which must be done at the time.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 28th February 2010 at 18:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good post. Here's my take on what the requirements should have been circa 1957, based on a high-low fighter mix (similar concept to the F-14 + F/A-18 mix in the 1980s):
"High end" fighter
- Excellent fleet air defense capability vs. Soviet bombers (i.e. Sparrow, all-weather, CAP endurance)
- Secondary escort / fighter interdiction capability (i.e. podded gun, acceleration, maneuverability)
- Secondary air-to-ground capability
"Low end" general purpose fighter
- Excellent escort / fighter interdiction capability (i.e. gun, acceleration, maneuverability)
- Good air-to-ground capability (at least as good payload/range as latter Skyhawks, Bullpup avionics etc.)
- Secondary fleet air defense capability vs. Soviet bombers (ideally provision for fitting avionics boxes for continuous wave illumination on an "as needed" basis for limited Sparrow capability)
With these ground rules, the F8U Crusader or its alternatives (F11F-1F Super Tiger, F5D Skylancer) should have had a greater emphasis on air-to-ground and drop tank capability, which the F8U lacked. The F4H Phantom only became capable of performing both high and low end roles in the late 1960s, with the F-4J and the benefit of more reliable missiles.
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 28th February 2010 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Take your time, read my post thoroughly, then come back and quote me properly.
As the original question is re-emphasised, I still think the Vixen was right up there with the American choices, being second to the Phantom practically speaking (Super Tiger and Skylancer not seeing service). As a high level interceptor for dealing with the then perceived soviet bomber threat, being just fast enough, plenty of range, high altitude manouverability, nav controlled target tracking, and a capable weapons load out. It was viceless at both ends of its speed range, all be it transonic.
Low level it was a useful fast striker, but you probably wouldn't want to get in a MiG mix up with it.
Be good to see some details and figures on the Etendard, to fairly compare to the other types mentioned.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 28th February 2010 at 20:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A naval fighter does operate far from bases and the own carrier in the most adverse weather conditions some-times. That alone does give the two-crew, two engine F-4B the edge in the 60s.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 28th February 2010 at 20:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With the Corsair II from 1966 something modern was at hand for the "Low end " general purpose fighter.