Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Did the lack of situational awareness in Vietnam cause an error in philosophy? My understanding is that the bubble canopy and high turn rates were for dealing with being bounced by oppo with superior SA.

If the designers had known that AWACS would give Blue superior SA how would the 4th gens been different?

My guess is less rearward vision and more focus on acceleration for BVR with less focus on turn rates.

F-16.net Sponsor

If what you're saying is that we'd have been better off with a re-engined Super Phantom over the F-15, then yes, I agree.

Question for southernphantom:

F-22 or this?

One thing you have to do is put yourself in the seat of the strategic planners of the 1950's to understand the aircraft of the early 1960's. They had just prosecuted WWII with massive bombing campaigns and closed the war with the atomic bombings of two cities. In their vision, future wars were going to be nuclear wars. So, to their way of thinking, aircraft had two primary purposes, delivering nuclear weapons and intercepting bombers armed with nuclear weapons.

Tactical attack aircraft like the F-105 Thunderchiefs were designed to fly fast to a target, drop a nuke, then get the hell out. F-104 Starfighters were designed to fly high and fast to intercept nuclear armed bombers as far from the continental United States (CONUS) as possible.

The F-4 was also intended to fill the missile-armed interceptor role, but also function as a tactical nuclear armed bomber in a secondary role. Again, the missions were to fly fast and straight and either launch your missiles or drop your nuke and get back to base. Dog fighting other aircraft was so 1940's! Not gonna see that anymore! Close air support? For what? Armies are only going to be used for occupation forces after the nuclear fires go out and the fallout settles.

So, all through the Viet Nam war these aircraft found themselves flying missions for which they were never intended.

AWACS, the Teens Series, the AIM-9L were all responses to the failed strategic understanding of the 1950's planners vision of future war. Hindsight is 20-20. Seeing into the future is always a lot harder!

southernphantom wrote:

If what you're saying is that we'd have been better off with a re-engined Super Phantom over the F-15, then yes, I agree.

A re-engined Super Phantom had nowhere near the growth potential of the F-15, and in WVR would've been thoroughly outclassed by pretty much everything.

I can't imagine that he was serious, WW.

Haven't there been a number of surprise attacks, despite AWACs coverage?

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Fundamental 4th gen design philosophy error?