Q for Geehovah
You say the AD guys would have preferred a 2seat 15 or the14.
Why the 2seat f15, It appears to have been a successful fighter in it's single version?
Because the navs were ther, ready to go?Just wondering.
CG
There'll be disagreements here but mainly because of technology. The F4 was mandraulic and the integration in the system planned for the F3 was still immature. In both aircraft the weapons system was a handful and it took one guy most of his time to use it. Had we used typical avionics of the time one guy would have struggled. APG63 was good even in the early days and the US has always been good at the man machine interface. Even so, it took a few years before it reached its peak and the F15A pilot didnt have the same SA as an F3 crew now has. It was always obvious that the single seat F15 pilots were not happy below 1000 feet where we were forced to operate both in Germany and over the North Sea at night. They could do it but a two seat pilot could devote all his time to the outside world. Had the requirement been met with a 2 seat F15 we'd have redesigned the avionics. bear in mind F15E was still a few years down the road at that time.
I'd also agree that a bad pilot was an extra supervisory load and a bad nav could easily ruin the effectiveness of the aircraft. That said, the concept was always to give a new pilot to an experienced back seater and vice versa which could improve the effectiveness of the lowest denominator.
Things nowadays are a lot different and with the improved integration in the current generation of fighters plus medium level ops, one guy is normally able to get the most out of the aircraft.
Last edited by Geehovah; 4th Dec 2010 at 07:17.