ABC (Australia) '4 Corners' programme 18 Feb - F35 expose
Andu - That is about right. The USAF was trying for speeds well above M=2.5, and supersonic on the deck, for what became the F-15. And no, there was no plan for the USAF to buy F-16s until Schlesinger shoved it down their throats in 1974-75.
On the other hand, the Air Force did accept the A-10 "willingly" but only because the likely alternative was an expansion of Army air. They just did not use them with any degree of enthusiasm, or upgrade them significantly in the first 25 years of use.
On the other hand, the Air Force did accept the A-10 "willingly" but only because the likely alternative was an expansion of Army air. They just did not use them with any degree of enthusiasm, or upgrade them significantly in the first 25 years of use.
@ LO "Mk 1 - It bears on the appropriateness of making such comments as yours about those who have had such an impact.
Also, it's overkill in the extreme to argue that the F-16A was radically different from the YF-16. 20 square feet of wing area and a few inches on the antenna size do not equal a redesign."
You forgot the small matter of the installation of the AN/APG-66 and the fact that the weight of the aircraft (you know that thing that the F-35 is continually beaten up on) increased by 25%
Yeah - you are right it was just a nip and tuck.
Which was my point (that you conveniently missed) - Sprey is revered as one of the father's of the F-16 - his concept of a couple of heaters and a gun in a small lightweight airframe didn't even stand up well in the late 60's early 70's (see mods mentioned earlier). And this was in an era when the F-16 would have plenty of F-15's providing 'big brother' high end support. The F-16 also had plenty of close relations in the F-4's, F-105's and F-111 to play the interdiction/strike role. Fast forward 40 years and even the US only has 187 F-22's to play the high end role - and the F-35 will be replacing every other damn tactical platform except F-15E's so the F-35 will have to be a multi-role product. By that very requirement it will be complicated, larger and less manourverable (particularly given the specs foistered on it) than Sprey's F-86 on steroids solution. In other airforces, the only jobs it won't have will be performed by basic trainers and C-130's (and the like).
Having Sprey give his opinion is like listening to some old car enthusiast complain that in a crash the modern cars don't crash like a 1955 Buick.
Also, it's overkill in the extreme to argue that the F-16A was radically different from the YF-16. 20 square feet of wing area and a few inches on the antenna size do not equal a redesign."
You forgot the small matter of the installation of the AN/APG-66 and the fact that the weight of the aircraft (you know that thing that the F-35 is continually beaten up on) increased by 25%
Yeah - you are right it was just a nip and tuck.Which was my point (that you conveniently missed) - Sprey is revered as one of the father's of the F-16 - his concept of a couple of heaters and a gun in a small lightweight airframe didn't even stand up well in the late 60's early 70's (see mods mentioned earlier). And this was in an era when the F-16 would have plenty of F-15's providing 'big brother' high end support. The F-16 also had plenty of close relations in the F-4's, F-105's and F-111 to play the interdiction/strike role. Fast forward 40 years and even the US only has 187 F-22's to play the high end role - and the F-35 will be replacing every other damn tactical platform except F-15E's so the F-35 will have to be a multi-role product. By that very requirement it will be complicated, larger and less manourverable (particularly given the specs foistered on it) than Sprey's F-86 on steroids solution. In other airforces, the only jobs it won't have will be performed by basic trainers and C-130's (and the like).
Having Sprey give his opinion is like listening to some old car enthusiast complain that in a crash the modern cars don't crash like a 1955 Buick.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mk1, they are looking at what they wished it was
Boyd commutated the mathematics of a WW1 dogfight with his BFM, he didn't invent the wheel
The fighter mafia did influence the f-15 and later the f-16...but as you have said..the production plane was far from what they envissioned... Then later, HMD and HOBS application makes a lot of it redundant.
Boyd commutated the mathematics of a WW1 dogfight with his BFM, he didn't invent the wheel
The fighter mafia did influence the f-15 and later the f-16...but as you have said..the production plane was far from what they envissioned... Then later, HMD and HOBS application makes a lot of it redundant.
Don't get too carried away by the HOBS shot - it costs the MX a lot of energy to do that. The less work you make the telegraph pole do, the better the shot.
Originally Posted by ftrplt
Which is all well and good, except when you get shot at first while waiting to give the missile less work.
Stack ALL the odds in our favour, I suggest.
The F-35 will be replacing every other damn tactical platform except F-15E's so the F-35 will have to be a multi-role product. By that very requirement it will be complicated, larger and less manourverable (particularly given the specs foistered on it) than Sprey's F-86 on steroids solution.
Well, yes. And ain't it workin' out jest hunky-
ing-dory.
Well, yes. And ain't it workin' out jest hunky-
ing-dory.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, yeas. That was kind of my point. With an airframe that's manoeuvrable you can do some of the work for it. HOBS weapons are a great bonus to agile aircraft, not a substitute for them.
are you making up that you were a pilot and know what the following means? you would be aware of the f-35's manoeuvrability with 5k pounds of weapons and a much larger fuel fraction is nearly as good as a clean f-16
how
ing good do you want it?
