Trotskygrad wrote:
Fine, The F4 NOW is a good design, due to the increased hit probability of AAMs.
I guess you could say the designer saw the future...
The hit probability of the AAMs has nothing to do with aircraft design.
FM wrote:
Yeah - only 4-5 years. How long have they been using F-16s? It was replaced by smaller, lighter aircraft because smaller, lighter aircraft are more maneuverable. I highly doubt they would have switched planes just because it was marginally more expensive to fuel one plane over the other.
Actually, that's
exactly why they switched. 5-to-1 is hardly "marginal".
wikipedia wrote:
McDonnell F-4E Phantom II
The 1969 conversion to the F-4 was the most extensive in the team’s history. Among other modifications, paints that had worked on the F-100 appeared blotchy on the F-4 because of multicolored alloys used to resist heat and friction at Mach 2 speeds. A polyurethane paint base was developed to resolve the problem. The white paint base remains a part of today’s Thunderbird aircraft. A popular myth is, given the exhaust emissions of the F-4's engines, the vertical stabilizer of the #4 slot aircraft was painted flat black. This is however false and the vertical stabilizer of the #4 slot aircraft was allowed to be blackened by jet exhaust starting in 1960. Phantoms were used from 1969–1973.
Northrop T-38 Talon
The fuel crisis of the early 1970s resulted selection of the Northrop T-38A Talon, a supersonic trainer. Five T-38s used the same amount of fuel needed for one F-4 Phantom, and fewer people and equipment were required to maintain the aircraft. Although it met the criteria of demonstrating the capabilities of a prominent Air Force aircraft, the Talon did not fulfil the Thunderbird tradition of flying front-line jet fighters. The team flew the Talon from 1974–1981.
--------------------------
The A-4's nimble performance also made it suitable to replace the F-4 Phantom II when the Navy downsized its aircraft for the Blue Angels demonstration team - until the availability of the F/A-18 Hornet in the 1980s.
As to why? The demonstration squadrons fly front-line aircraft. The T-38 was flown because of the fuel economy issue, but it was discontinued because it wasn't a front-line fighter (the A-4 was considered front-line, so it was continued). The F-16 met all criteria: maneuverability, economy, and front-line, so it replaced the T-38 when it came on line in the early 80s. If you look at the timelines for aircraft in the squadrons, 4-5 years was not uncommon for either squadron. Back then, new aircraft came on line a lot more often than they do now.
FM wrote:
It would if it used its speed to run away from encounters it didn't have the upper hand in.
In my admittedly narrow knowledge of the aircraft based on accounts on History/Military channel shows (of course, that is exactly what your opinions are based on as well) I have seen veterans paint the aircraft in a very different light. It was a pain in the ass to fly in anything but a straight line, it was more difficult than a typical aircraft to land it on a carrier, and the entire theory behind the design was flawed.
Sorry, bro, but my opinions are based on a bit more than that. I work daily with/for people who flew the thing. I've spent the past 15 years of my life in the USAF and quite a bit more time prior to that studying aircraft design and air warfare. I've studied the air war in Vietnam extensively, both personally and professionally. Oh...and I've watched some TV, too.
FM wrote:
I dunno where you got your numbers either.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/F-4_Phantom_II?t=3.#3."The Navy claimed 40 air-to-air victories at the cost of 73 Phantoms lost in combat (7 to aircraft, 13 to SAMs, and 53 to AAA). An additional 54 Phantoms were lost in accidents. [48]"
"Marine F-4 pilots claimed three enemy MiGs (two while on exchange duty with the USAF) at the cost of 75 aircraft lost in combat, mostly to ground fire, and four in accidents."
"A total of 445 Air Force Phantom fighter-bombers were lost, 370 in combat and 193 of those over North Vietnam (33 to MiGs, 30 to SAMs, and 307 to AAA)...USAF F-4C/D/E crews scored 107½ MiG kills in Southeast Asia (50 by Sparrow, 31 by Sidewinder, five by Falcon, 15.5 by gun, and six by other means)."
Let's do some quick math here...
40/7=5.7 (USN)
107.5/33=3.26 (USAF)
147.5/40=3.7 (total)
I guess you're right. The number I found was low. Must've included the USMC numbers.
Remember, the bulk of aircraft losses in Vietnam were due to SAM and AAA,
not air-to-air, which is what is important in this discussion.
FM wrote:
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21?t=3.#3.
"After a million sorties and nearly a thousand lost US aircraft, Operation Rolling Thunder came to an end on 1 November 1968. [16] Poor air-to-air combat loss-exchange ratios against the smaller, more agile enemy MiGs during the early part of the Vietnam War eventually led the USN to create their Navy Fighter Weapons School, also known as "Top Gun" at Miramar Naval Air Station on 3 March 1969. [17] The USAF quickly followed with their own version, titled the Dissimilar Air Combat Training (sometimes referred to as Red Flag) program. These two programs employed the subsonic A-4 Skyhawk and the supersonic F-5 Tiger II, as well as the Mach 2.4-capable USAF F-106 Delta Dart, which mimicked the MiG-21. [18] Over the course of the air war, between 3 April 1965 [19] and 8 January 1973, each side would ultimately claim favorable kill ratios."
Your point? You're essentially reinforcing what I said earlier WRT TOP GUN and RED FLAG.
