F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

That's what was thought about the Mig-29 V the F-15. Turned out the F-15 could handle it's own quite well in a turn and burn. The problem isn't with which AC can do it best, it's the fact the Pilot can only take so much. When all of the AC can sustain a better than a 9+ G turn rate it gets down to the pilot. Even the F-22 is limited by the pilots physical limits. NEVER, NEVER fight an even fight. Always fight the fight where you have the advantage. All this crap about modern day dog fighting is just that. The 5th gen fighter determines the fight and he will always elect to disengage and take it to BVR where the 4th gen fighter is at a huge disadvantage. You try and get an F-15 in a dogfight, he just uses his massive power and puts miles between you and him and it's a different game, one where he's king. But if the F-15 is going against something like a SU-35, he's going to want to keep it up close, maybe, wherever the Pilot of the F-15 believes he has the advantage. Or the F-15 Pilot is going to hit the gas and just leave and there is nothing that any one can do about it. Try following a F-15 on V-Max going UP. Even you missiles can't follow him.

When the F-15 was introduced, all the rules were changed. And all successful fighters after it had to be able to come close to that performance of at least a sustained 9+ g stress. But Pilots haven't changed and can really only take about a 7.5 sustained stress. Meaning, the A-7 can turn with just about anything if the Pilot is wearing a G suit. In 1980, there were no G-suits for A-7 pilots.

 

[Silver Cat]

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles

TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.

In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq

In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....

I was briefed on your "So Called" limited war between Warsaw Pact and Nato in 1980. I will tell you this, the Soviets WOULD have used tactical nukes and could take out every Nato Air base in about 6 minutes with tactical nukes. The only birds from Nato in the skies would only be those that were already in the sky or those Alert Birds that got off in time. Even if they didn't, they would mount Mig-27 racks on the Mig-23s and take out every runway in 6 minutes conventionally. It all would be determined if the Soviets believe if the limited nukes would or would not lead to an all out Nuclear Exchange. I was involved in the 1980 Wargames in Europe in 1980. I was on the Soviet AF team. We used tactical Nukes and the East German Autobahns were our Runways. 6 minutes fro launch. The Mig-25s were flown mimicking bombers until the Alert Birds saw the real threat then the look down shoot down Mig-25s ended the ruse. The Nato Fighters get about halfway up and now can see the Mig-23s coming in and go "Holy Shit" and go after the real threat but it's too late.

Now, it's junk against junk and the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming amount of junk.

hahahhahahhah
.....nukes used---so the scenario is:
it doesn't MATTER how many planes the WP has---it's a nuke war!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, of course. Do you have any problems with the nuclear war?

How it was described?

"1-5 SOVIET WAR-FIGHTING, WAR-WINNING DOCTRINE
The Soviet military leaders, as revealed in their writings, have
never accepted the necessity for mutual vulnerability. They do not use the
concept of deterrence, not in a military sense. Most likely the Soviets are
sincere when claiming they want to avoid nuclear war, but just as sincerely
they make it clear that if a superpower nuclear war should occur, they intend
to fight and ultimately win. Thus, Soviet military writings stress a "war￾fighting, war-winning" doctrine that has been adapted to Clausewltz's dictum
that was 1s an extension of politics. From affirming Moscow's support of
"liberation" wars, to rejecting the Ideas that superpower nuclear war 1s
unthinkable or that such a war can have no winner, Soviet military doctrine
consistently supports the correlation between war and policy. A key point 1n
this doctrine is that despite revolutionary Increases in the destructive
power of weapons, Moscow continues to view war as an Instrument of policy:
"The premise of Marxism-Leninism on war as a continuation of policy
by military means remains true in an atmosphere of fundamental
changes In military matters. The attempt of certain bourgeois
Ideologists to prove that nuclear war moves beyond the control of
policy, ceases to be an Instrument of policy, and does not consti￾tute Its continuation 1s theoretically Incorrect and politically
reactionary....The description of the correlation between war and
policy Is fully valid for the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Far from leading to a lessening of the role of policy in waging war,
the tremendous might of the means of destruction leads to the rais￾ing of that role. After all. Immeasurably more effective means of
struggle are now at the direct disposal of state power."(10)

This view is in direct contradiction to the view held by some
Western theorists that the catastrophic destructiveness of nuclear weapons
makes such weapons less effective as an instrument of policy. Furthermore,
Soviet war doctrine calls for victory not deterrence, preemption not retali￾ation, and superiority in weapons not "rough equivalence," thus acknowledg￾ing the "extraordinarily important role" military might plays in assuring
world peace (on Soviet terms). This doctrine has five related elements:
preemption, quantitative superiority, counterforce and C targeting, com￾bined arms operations to supplement nuclear strikes, and defense.(11)
Soviet strategic doctrine stresses the value of surprise in war and
the decisiveness of a nuclear first strike capability. The Soviets have
concluded that in any future war, nuclear weapons will be the deciding
factor. From this they have deduced that the side that strikes first with
nuclear weapons will have a significant advantage and, in fact, will win the
war."

 

[harmonica]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

 

[Dayton3]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

When the SU-35 jumped a F-22, the F-22 was at a momentary disadvantage. Yes, he knew the SU-35 was there and had to let him close. At that very moment, the SU-35 had the edge. But the F-22 could change from a disadvantage to an advantage at a moments notice. The F-22 has the option to turn and burn or go to what he does best. The SU-35, in that situation, has no choice but to try and stay in a turn and burn. He can't run. If it were the F-15 instead of a F-22 it would be no different. The F-15 could disengage, put some distance and reengage with a new advantage. NEVER, I say again, NEVER fight the other guys fight.

 

[harmonica]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

 

[harmonica]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

surely you troll and bullshit

 

[harmonica]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

 

[Dayton3]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

Again, what makes you think the rules of engagement would allow BVR? Most ROEs have in fact not allowed that tactic ever since medium and long range missiles became available.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.

 

[harmonica]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.

game over in these links--sorry
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate

'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and more agile.''''

''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was deadly in a turn, and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its large size. The MiG-21 was generally considered more maneuverable, while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.

'''''The big, burly Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''

Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine

US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.

www.airforcemag.com

Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)

Whose fighter was better?

news.yahoo.com

The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate

Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?

www.historynet.com

.

 

[harmonica]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

Again, what makes you think the rules of engagement would allow BVR? Most ROEs have in fact not allowed that tactic ever since medium and long range missiles became available.

see my post # 2192

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.

game over in these links--sorry
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate

'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and more agile.''''

''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was deadly in a turn, and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its large size. The MiG-21 was generally considered more maneuverable, while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.

'''''The big, burly Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''

Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine

US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.

www.airforcemag.com

Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)

Whose fighter was better?

news.yahoo.com

The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate

Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?

www.historynet.com

.

The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap. I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs. Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle. Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack. Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles. Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack. Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total. But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s. If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap.. And they were quite successful.

The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight. It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight. The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.

You can't win this one. History can't be changed just because you want it to.

 

[harmonica]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.

game over in these links--sorry
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate

'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and more agile.''''

''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was deadly in a turn, and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its large size. The MiG-21 was generally considered more maneuverable, while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.

'''''The big, burly Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''

Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine

US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.

www.airforcemag.com

Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)

Whose fighter was better?

news.yahoo.com

The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate

Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?

www.historynet.com

.

The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap. I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs. Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle. Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack. Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles. Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack. Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total. But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s. If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap.. And they were quite successful.

The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight. It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight. The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.

You can't win this one. History can't be changed just because you want it to.

successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
it's right THERE! the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.

game over in these links--sorry
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate

'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and more agile.''''

''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was deadly in a turn, and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its large size. The MiG-21 was generally considered more maneuverable, while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.

'''''The big, burly Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''

Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine

US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.

www.airforcemag.com

Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)

Whose fighter was better?

news.yahoo.com

The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate

Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?

www.historynet.com

.

The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap. I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs. Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle. Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack. Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles. Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack. Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total. But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s. If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap.. And they were quite successful.

The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight. It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight. The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.

You can't win this one. History can't be changed just because you want it to.

successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
it's right THERE! the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate

The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap. The A-7 pilots were not. the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots. The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun. And until the F-4 pilots did, they weren't faring any better than the Slufs. And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either. It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.

 

[esalla]

Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate

Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run

Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?

The F35 is a total hunk of shit. It was supposed to be a vertical takeoff jet, I even saw a model engine in the air and space museum that showed such. This means no carrier needed, this jet is a scam perhaps built to sell. At least 1 new jet is under design now

 

[harmonica]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.

game over in these links--sorry
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate

'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and more agile.''''

''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was deadly in a turn, and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its large size. The MiG-21 was generally considered more maneuverable, while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.

'''''The big, burly Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''

Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine

US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.

www.airforcemag.com

Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)

Whose fighter was better?

news.yahoo.com

The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate

Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?

www.historynet.com

.

The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap. I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs. Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle. Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack. Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles. Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack. Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total. But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s. If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap.. And they were quite successful.

The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight. It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight. The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.

You can't win this one. History can't be changed just because you want it to.

successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
it's right THERE! the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate

The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap. The A-7 pilots were not. the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots. The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun. And until the F-4 pilots did, they weren't faring any better than the Slufs. And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either. It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.

hahahhahahahahahaha
1. idiocy
2. we are comparing A7 which is SO maneuverable to the F15, that the A7 could win
..the A7 never went against the 15
hahhahahahha
you know you lost this time
''quality of the pilot'' --I knew you people would say that!!
.....let's tie the 15's pilot's right arm and blindfold him...that would make the A7 pilot better---ok???????????!!!!!!!!!
NO NO NO
the same pilots in the A7 and 15----that's the subject
OF COURSE if you have a shithead pilot he won't do well-DUH!!!!!!!!!

 

[harmonica]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.

game over in these links--sorry
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate

'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and more agile.''''

''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was deadly in a turn, and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its large size. The MiG-21 was generally considered more maneuverable, while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.

'''''The big, burly Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''

Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine

US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.

www.airforcemag.com

Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)

Whose fighter was better?

news.yahoo.com

The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate

Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?

www.historynet.com

.

The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap. I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs. Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle. Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack. Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles. Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack. Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total. But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s. If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap.. And they were quite successful.

The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight. It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight. The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.

You can't win this one. History can't be changed just because you want it to.

successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
it's right THERE! the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate

The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap. The A-7 pilots were not. the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots. The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun. And until the F-4 pilots did, they weren't faring any better than the Slufs. And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either. It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.

...first you say the A7 will be the 15 because it's more maneuverable
NOW you say it's the pilot and tactics--THAT's what I said a long time ago!!!!!!..I said it was tactics and training--not maneuverability

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training

It is also rules of engagement. If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!

The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home. If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless. It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only. In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire. And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing. A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance. That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980. The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH

When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage. You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions. It wasn't. And it isn't much more than that now. And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun. You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K. Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles. It would end up using gun passes. And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun. And that A-7 does have teeth of his own. Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.

game over in these links--sorry
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate

'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and more agile.''''

''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was deadly in a turn, and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its large size. The MiG-21 was generally considered more maneuverable, while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.

'''''The big, burly Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''

Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine

US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.

www.airforcemag.com

Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)

Whose fighter was better?

news.yahoo.com

The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate

Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?

www.historynet.com

.

The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap. I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs. Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle. Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack. Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles. Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack. Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total. But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s. If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap.. And they were quite successful.

The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight. It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight. The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.

You can't win this one. History can't be changed just because you want it to.

successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
it's right THERE! the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate

The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap. The A-7 pilots were not. the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots. The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun. And until the F-4 pilots did, they weren't faring any better than the Slufs. And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either. It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.

...first you say the A7 will be the 15 because it's more maneuverable
NOW you say it's the pilot and tactics--THAT's what I said a long time ago!!!!!!..I said it was tactics and training--not maneuverability

And yet you say that an A-7 can NEVER win against an F-15. You are talking out both ends of your body now but mostly out the south end. They have run simulations where even WWII Prop Jobs fair well against the most modern Fighters when you remove the BVR. Most of the time, the modern Fighter runs out of gas and has to disengage.
\