Salute!
@Harry
I agree with George. Most post-50's USAF and USN and USMC planes were not envisioned as pure defensive interceptors, even the F-14 ( it was also supposed to provide air superiority for missions besides protecting the carrier task force).
The F-15 was a pure air superiority design to meet the operational requirements and doctrine of the times, Sure, it was a great interceptor, but it's main misison was to guarantee air superiority over the battle field - Europe!!! The F-16 started out as a supplement, but evolved into a multi-role bird. The F-4 also started out as an air superiority bird, but quickly evolved to multi-mission. Oh yeah, the A-10. A point design to assist the attack helos and bust tanks pouring thru the Fulda Gap.
We need some "PACT" vets here to add to my own personal background of those times. SO I flew the pure interceptors ( defense of the homeland), dedicated ground attack types for a few combat tours, and then the multi-role Viper (an excellent point defense interceptor, BTW).
From what I saw, the U.S. did not follow the PACT designs. And the Eagle was not developed to intercept Foxbats. The B-70, then the Bone were supposed to be way out there with zero fighter escort. Times had changed since raids on ball bearing plants. I noticed the similarity of the Fencer to the 'vaark, as the PACT started to develope some ofensive capability with their planes besides the PVO Strany planes like the Fishbed, Flanker and then Fulcrum.
Biggest design consideration was "form vs function" and operational/doctrinal requirements.
Good thread, and I might invite some fellow vets of those years to contribute.
Gums opines...
Last edited by gums; 2nd Jan 2018 at 14:39.
Reason: typos