Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

rkap, The Navy F-111B was intended to be an interceptor and would have performed to job. The Navy never wanted it, so did everything they could to scuttle it. The Air Force strike mission was compromised only by the Navy-associated 3000 lb weight penalty, short vertical tail, and overly complex high lift system. No part of the Navy interceptor-related equipment (AWG-9 radar system, AIM-54 Phoenix missiles, special pylons) flew on the AF airplane. So it wasn't compromised by being an interceptor, but by having the Navy involved.

F-16.net Sponsor

Salute!

Decent explanation about the politics and requirements, John-Boy.

One thing about the 'vaark I wonder about was that very heavy landing gear "truck".

On my joy ride at Cannon in the "D" or whatever model that had the glass cockpit, my IP warned me that right after touchdown the plane would want to lift off again, as "x" pounds were not being supported by the wings. 'tis true, I had a nice approach and he decided to let me actually land the thing, heh heh.

IMHO, the commonality of the F-35 models does not compare to the F-111. I was a clueless yute at the time going thru Deuce school and didn't realize how big the 'vaark was gonna be, nor did I understand all the mission requirements and such that DoD had placed on the jet.

Only fly in the ointment with the F-35 is the "B" model.

If I could turn the clock back and sit down with McNamara and his whiz kids, I would have recommended something like the F-16 or even the F-18 ( choke). It wasn't until after I flew two interceptors and then an attack plane or two in SEA that I understood all the "requirements'.

The F-4 and A-7 were very successful designs that served USAF and USN. The F-35 looks more like the A-7 for the operational mission requirements. And I would be happy to take the thing into harm's way.

later,

Gums sends...

johnwill wrote:

rkap, The Navy F-111B was intended to be an interceptor and would have performed to job. The Navy never wanted it, so did everything they could to scuttle it. The Air Force strike mission was compromised only by the Navy-associated 3000 lb weight penalty, short vertical tail, and overly complex high lift system. No part of the Navy interceptor-related equipment (AWG-9 radar system, AIM-54 Phoenix missiles, special pylons) flew on the AF airplane. So it wasn't compromised by being an interceptor, but by having the Navy involved.

Without going too deeply into the politics surrounding the development of the TFX, the F-111A was compromised by design requirements (imposed on the series) necessary to operate from aircraft carriers. Had the SecDef not insisted upon a "joint" solution to meet the USAF need for a penetrating nuclear delivery "bomber," and the Navy's need for a fleet air defense "fighter," the resulting F-111 would have been a considerably larger and heavier aircraft with more internal fuel.

Gums wrote:

Salute!

Decent explanation about the politics and requirements, John-Boy.

One thing about the 'vaark I wonder about was that very heavy landing gear "truck".

On my joy ride at Cannon in the "D" or whatever model that had the glass cockpit, my IP warned me that right after touchdown the plane would want to lift off again, as "x" pounds were not being supported by the wings. 'tis true, I had a nice approach and he decided to let me actually land the thing, heh heh.

IMHO, the commonality of the F-35 models does not compare to the F-111. I was a clueless yute at the time going thru Deuce school and didn't realize how big the 'vaark was gonna be, nor did I understand all the mission requirements and such that DoD had placed on the jet.

Only fly in the ointment with the F-35 is the "B" model.

If I could turn the clock back and sit down with McNamara and his whiz kids, I would have recommended something like the F-16 or even the F-18 ( choke). It wasn't until after I flew two interceptors and then an attack plane or two in SEA that I understood all the "requirements'.

The F-4 and A-7 were very successful designs that served USAF and USN. The F-35 looks more like the A-7 for the operational mission requirements. And I would be happy to take the thing into harm's way.

later,

Gums sends...

What are you thoughts (if any) on the possibility of a USAF XF8U-3 Crusader III back in the day? Without the variable incidence wing (less weight), I'd think it would be exactly what they were looking for.

Salute!

@ sferrin

Wouldn't want a Crusader variant, even back then.

Vought did the right thing with the A-7.

The design of the F-8 was "old" technology by mid-sixties, and by then the F-4 was being cranked out by the dozen for USAF and USN. Then we had the TFX debacle. Light weight fighter and the F-15 program were just dreams until late 60's. Same for the AX, which became the Warthog. Trust me, I was there and flew the plane that demonstrated we needed a new Skyraider. Our A-37's proved that a jet could do the job, but that it couldn't be supersonic, had to have a great loadout and efficient engines. We waxed the F-100's and F-4's at every CAS mission, just like the A-1. We were faster than the A-1, but we carried more than the F-100 and could work below the monsoon cloud cover.

The A-7 used some F-8 features, but it was a pure ground attack jet design. When the USAF got involved, many avionics systems were added, as well as a bigger motor. I would take it to this day for combat in many scenarios except versus a high-tech IAD system. The "D" was so good that USN took it and called the "E" model. Only difference was the doofer on the nose gear for cat lurches.

enuff of my war stories and philosophy for now.

Gums sends...

Gums wrote:

Salute!

@ sferrin

Wouldn't want a Crusader variant, even back then.

Vought did the right thing with the A-7.

The design of the F-8 was "old" technology by mid-sixties, and by then the F-4 was being cranked out by the dozen for USAF and USN. Then we had the TFX debacle. Light weight fighter and the F-15 program were just dreams until late 60's. Same for the AX, which became the Warthog. Trust me, I was there and flew the plane that demonstrated we needed a new Skyraider. Our A-37's proved that a jet could do the job, but that it couldn't be supersonic, had to have a great loadout and efficient engines. We waxed the F-100's and F-4's at every CAS mission, just like the A-1. We were faster than the A-1, but we carried more than the F-100 and could work below the monsoon cloud cover.

The A-7 used some F-8 features, but it was a pure ground attack jet design. When the USAF got involved, many avionics systems were added, as well as a bigger motor. I would take it to this day for combat in many scenarios except versus a high-tech IAD system. The "D" was so good that USN took it and called the "E" model. Only difference was the doofer on the nose gear for cat lurches.

enuff of my war stories and philosophy for now.

Gums sends...

ISTR reading that the F/X (F-15) was headed towards more of an F/A-18 type of aircraft, and then they found out about the Mig-25. That's was the motivation for bumping the weight/performance up to what the F-15 became. At one point they even wanted a Mach 2.7 top end speed but they relaxed it to the 2.5 figure to keep that bubble canopy.

Salute!

@ sferrin, et al

I was there at the time, but a lowly attack puke.

A a result of the 'nam A2A experience, it was obvious we needed a better A2A fighter than the F-4. And we also needed better missiles and a cannon for situations when a bad guy just flew out in front of you at 1000 feet! Finally, we needed better training against aircraft other than the ones we had in our squad.

The FX program went to pure A2A after just a few program reviews and such. The mantra became "not a pound for air-to-ground", and so the door was open for the Viper.

The Viper was originally to be the low end of a mix, and we needed to replace the F-100 and then the F-4. Later, USAF decided to replace the A-7D with a new "attack" plane to meet the threat in Europe.

As the European group became interested in replacing their F-5's and F-104's, the YF-16 began to look like a good deal if USAF went with it. Meanwhile, the F-15 showed what a "pure" fighter could do, and trust me, the top speed was not a factor. The Eagle could do really well with fixed intakes and a top speed of 1.6M. The newer missiles were faster than a Foxbat, but USAF had to convince the clueless Congress folks handing out the bucks that our new, expensive fighter was fast.

As with the Viper, the Eagle had really great turning performance in the 0.85 M to 0.95 M speed range. Sure, you could zip along at 2.0 M, but only zip along. Hitting a Foxbat at 75,000 feet doing 2.7M was easy with the old missiles, cause that sucker wasn't turning and burning. It was also up high and had a great radar signature. The Foxbat could not turn worth a damn, and down low, it was meat on the table.

I do not believe that the Eagle canopy was a limiting factor, but maybe an old McAir dude can jump in here.

Both the Eagle and Viper were the premier fighters of the late 70's and 80's and even into the 90's. This is not an opinion, but a judgement based on the kill ratios both had against real opponents in several arenas.

Gums sends....

johnwill wrote:

The Navy F-111B was intended to be an interceptor and would have performed to job. The Navy never wanted it, so did everything they could to scuttle it.

Your reply and a few of the others clears it up now in my mind. We obviously did the right thing getting the F111C export version. The best version for strike and range. I just could not remember - I knew it was primarily designed as a strike aircraft but could not remember how the Interceptor role came in.

The F-111C did have a connection to the interceptor F-111B, as they shared the extended wing section bolted on to the Air Force wing. Australia showed extreme patience with the C as they sat on the ramp in Fort Worth for years until final fixes could be installed.

johnwill - what can you not understand about Vietnam? The Vietnam experience blew the idea of a purely missile armed long range interceptor out of water. (Remember how magnificently successful the AIM-7 was? And how missile combat blew all the North Vietnamese MIGs out of the sky?)

If you can credibly argue that the F-111B was as maneuverable as the F-14A, you have a point. Otherwise, yes, F-111B made the Navy's original requirements. Those requirements changed, and the Navy, acting in its own best interest, went with an airplane that fit the requirements.

As for the F-111 and the JSF, they're both joint programs designed to be a smart solution to a fighter gap. They will be compared and with reason. Only a success on the JSF's part will end such comparisons. Sorry about that, but its a fact of life (and/or sensationalist journalism...)

The JSF's job is simple: succeed. If it can't, the program will go down in history as one of the worst acquisition failures in DoD history.

arkadyrenko wrote:

johnwill - what can you not understand about Vietnam? The Vietnam experience blew the idea of a purely missile armed long range interceptor out of water. (Remember how magnificently successful the AIM-7 was? And how missile combat blew all the North Vietnamese MIGs out of the sky?)

If you can credibly argue that the F-111B was as maneuverable as the F-14A, you have a point. Otherwise, yes, F-111B made the Navy's original requirements. Those requirements changed, and the Navy, acting in its own best interest, went with an airplane that fit the requirements.

As for the F-111 and the JSF, they're both joint programs designed to be a smart solution to a fighter gap. They will be compared and with reason. Only a success on the JSF's part will end such comparisons. Sorry about that, but its a fact of life (and/or sensationalist journalism...)

The JSF's job is simple: succeed. If it can't, the program will go down in history as one of the worst acquisition failures in DoD history.

arkadyrenko, I'm not entirely sure why you are questioning my understanding of Vietnam. Based on your comments, I am questioning your understanding of the term "interceptor". Here's one definition - "An interceptor aircraft (or simply interceptor) is a type of fighter aircraft designed specifically to prevent missions of enemy aircraft, particularly bombers and reconnaissance aircraft". It seems you think an interceptor is an air superiority fighter.

I repeat, the F-111B would have met the Fleet Defense Fighter (interceptor) mission it was designed for. It was not an air superiority fighter. The F-14, 2500 lb lighter (empty) had 30% less fuel and could handle the air superiority mission. However, it could not accomplish the Fleet Defense mission nearly as well as the F-111B. Two different missions, two different airplanes. The Navy changed the mission requirements after the -111B was designed.

What I was trying to say is this: the Navy changed their requirements after the experience from Vietnam. You seem to be implying that the Navy's requirement change was somehow illegitimate, that the Navy should have stuck with their original project. I believe that idea to be wrong, as it makes little sense to pursue a flawed development path. I'm not denying that the F-111B meet the Navy's original requirements, all I'm saying is that the Navy changed the requirements, for very valid reasons, and the F-111B was cancelled as a result.

The fact of the matter is that if the F-111 had not been a joint program, the USAF version would have been better and the Navy version would have been cancelled. Which means that the US military would have been better off in the long run.

IDK, the F-111B still had serious issues with weight and throttle response behind the boat, serious enough to risk failing CQ and justify cancellation (or further redesign) even without refreshed requirements:

"The F-111B, due primarily to its lack of adequate engine thrust response and great weight, exhibited unsatisfactory waveoff performance. The waveoff technique itself was unsatisfactory (a rapid rotation to 24 units) because it causes the aircraft’s nose to block the pilot’s view of the horizon and ship’s island structure."

Table 13: Flight Test Waveoff Performance Results (Historical)
"REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT –PHASE I; FINAL REPORT"
NAWCADPAX/TR-2002/71

Well there is another similarity between the JSF and the TFX, Navy changed the requirements after it was built.

maus92 wrote:

IDK, the F-111B still had serious issues with weight and throttle response behind the boat, serious enough to risk failing CQ and justify cancellation (or further redesign) even without refreshed requirements:

"The F-111B, due primarily to its lack of adequate engine thrust response and great weight, exhibited unsatisfactory waveoff performance. The waveoff technique itself was unsatisfactory (a rapid rotation to 24 units) because it causes the aircraft’s nose to block the pilot’s view of the horizon and ship’s island structure."

Table 13: Flight Test Waveoff Performance Results (Historical)
"REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT –PHASE I; FINAL REPORT"
NAWCADPAX/TR-2002/71

Other aircraft exhibiting similar behavior from the same report were the F-8J, RA-5C, and T-45, none of which were cancelled.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

F-35 compared to TFX (F-111)