Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

aaam wrote:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

again you mean?

USAF bought the Phantom because they were ordered to consider it (they didn't want to), and when they did it was so jaw dropping over everything else around (after all--it was the Phantom) they simply couldn't ignore it or let someone else have it while they didn't. Even then, one of the first things they did was take away one of the features that made it so special (the RIO in the rear cockpit) and put in a second stick and pilot.

USAF bought the A-7 because again there was noting else out there that compared to it, and there was a war on and they were running out of F-105s. I suspect that if Vietnam wasn't in play, you wouldn't have seen this happen, they would have tried to invent their own. In this case, AF dramatically improved the SLUF. So much so, that the Navy went out and started buying what was essentially the AF version with probe and drogue refueling, some different radios and smaller brakes.

Helicopters don't count, because as any fighter pilot will tell you, those aren't "real" airplanes. On the other hand, helos do offer the advantage of being able to access far more golf courses. Smile

I am well aware of the AF history of the Phantom, didn't know about the SLUFF though, guess I just missed that one. But the point I was trying to make is that if a Navy plane is made (pardon fanboy jargon here, but history vindicates me one this) awesomely like the Phantom II was then not only will it work for AF, but Marines, RAF, RN, NATO, Japan, Israel, etc... This customer base sounds kind of familiar right? If you build an exceptional plane for the USN, then the world will want it.

There are two ways to have a common multi service a/c.

If you FORCE a plane to be DESIGNED for multi services then you end up with the F-111, that didn't do the job for anyone (but did another job par-none for decades).

If you let the company build the navy the best darn fighter in the world (which the Phantom II was) then it can be sold to everyone.

Now I understand that a naval advanced strike fighter might not fulfill the USMC requirement of STOVL, unless it did. Whats to say that STOVL ops don't benefit everyone? AF could still use a STOVL plane in a CTOL manner to increase payload.

F-16.net Sponsor

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

I am well aware of the AF history of the Phantom, didn't know about the SLUFF though, guess I just missed that one. But the point I was trying to make is that if a Navy plane is made (pardon fanboy jargon here, but history vindicates me one this) awesomely like the Phantom II was then not only will it work for AF, but Marines, RAF, RN, NATO, Japan, Israel, etc... This customer base sounds kind of familiar right? If you build an exceptional plane for the USN, then the world will want it.

There are two ways to have a common multi service a/c.

If you FORCE a plane to be DESIGNED for multi services then you end up with the F-111, that didn't do the job for anyone (but did another job par-none for decades).

If you let the company build the navy the best darn fighter in the world (which the Phantom II was) then it can be sold to everyone.

Now I understand that a naval advanced strike fighter might not fulfill the USMC requirement of STOVL, unless it did. Whats to say that STOVL ops don't benefit everyone? AF could still use a STOVL plane in a CTOL manner to increase payload.

All I was getting at was that USAF is extremely reluctant to buy a major system they didn't develop themselves or participate in any joint program for which they aren't the 800 pound gorilla. This is not necessarily true of the other services or foreign customers. The context was that there's no way USAF would buy the SH, unless it was forced to, period. And, no one's going to force them even if it had been a stellar aerodynamic performer. I'm opining that any alternatives being talked about with SHs being bought by USAF are effectively non-starters.

As far as the F-111 goes, it did what it did (which was the USAF mission it was designed for) better than anyone else in its day. But, because of the forced compromises laid on it, even there it didn't meet the requirements and promises it was designed for.

Thinking about this a bit more, I am reminded of the old phrase, "Never say never". I can think of one case where the AF may end up with SHs.

IF the Saudi deal doesn't materialize and the F-15 goes out of production and the line goes cold, and if a few years after that the F-35 is canceled, the AF might have to take those planes in the Guard and Reserves dedicated to the Air Sovereignty role and use them to keep the normal AF functional until something else can be developed, then USAF might be forced by DoD to replace those planes with the SH. Not because it's the right or best plane like the F-4 was (and even then they had to be forced to look at it), but because it's the only thing we have in production.

As long as the F-15 (not necessarily the SE) remains a viable option, though, I maintain there's no way USAF would buy a Navy aircraft.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F-15SE transition: Now or never?