Active Military Fighter Aircraft of the 70'ies

[Kruska]

The Soviets always had substantial battlefield anti aircraft capabilities. It was never expected that every A-10 mission during the war would result in the aircraft returning home. However, it was expected that the deployed A-10 fleet would inflict substantial Soviet losses before being depleted.

The calculated loss rate during the cold war was set at 70% in regards to the A-10.

Which would have made the A-10 an outstanding aircraft - if compared to the estimated mission rate of 0,76 across the board for aircraft deployed by NATO during the 70'ies. The champ IIRC was the British Harrier with an estimated mission rate of 1.24.

 

[Flash]

The calculated loss rate during the cold war was set at 70% in regards to the A-10.

Which would have made the A-10 an outstanding aircraft - if compared to the estimated mission rate of 0,76 across the board for aircraft deployed by NATO during the 70'ies. The champ IIRC was the British Harrier with an estimated mission rate of 1.24.

The surviveabilty of the A-10 was mostly dependent upon the pilot's ability to use the terrain to mask the attack.

In 1967 I was assigned to an Intelligence unit at the Fluda Gap. Right on the 5K Zone. When I got there and checked in to get my equipment I was not assigned a weapon. When I questioned it the supply clerk he just laughed. He said our mission at that station was to yell "Oh Shit They Are Comming" and then to be the grease for the threads of the Soviet tanks. We would be the first casualties of the war and would never get a chance to fire a weapon.

Later on I was able to observe Soviet artillery training on setting up to obliterate our facility. I said "to hell with that" and volunteered for Vietnam.

 

[Kruska]

The surviveabilty of the A-10 was mostly dependent upon the pilot's ability to use the terrain to mask the attack.

In 1967 I was assigned to an Intelligence unit at the Fluda Gap. Right on the 5K Zone. When I got there and checked in to get my equipment I was not assigned a weapon. When I questioned it the supply clerk he just laughed. He said our mission at that station was to yell "Oh Shit They Are Comming" and then to be the grease for the threads of the Soviet tanks. We would be the first casualties of the war and would never get a chance to fire a weapon.

Later on I was able to observe Soviet artillery training on setting up to obliterate our facility. I said "to hell with that" and volunteered for Vietnam.

The first unit I served with in the Bundeswehr had been given 8 min in the event of a war. But I wouldn't have volunteered for Vietnam

 

[Vrenn]

B-52s went to standoff nuclear weapons due to General Operational Requirement 148 which was released in 1956. It called for a standoff nuclear weapon for B-52 that could outrange Soviet SAMs, which at the time primary threat to US bombers was the SA-2 Guideline. This resulted in development of the Hound Dog missile, which was arming B-52s by 1959.

This predates MIG-25, which entered full rate production 10 years later in 1969.

Funny, as late as 1980, some Buffs were loaded with free fall nukes. I guess they didn't get the memo. Actually, Standoffs weren't that reliable as early as the "Memo". The Migs just made it happen faster.

 

[Vrenn]

The first unit I served with in the Bundeswehr had been given 8 min in the event of a war. But I wouldn't have volunteered for Vietnam

I was stationed at Bitburg with about the same life expectancy. Just enough time to launch most of the Eagles and then light up.

 

[Vrenn]

Name me a single spot in Russia in regards to range that e.g. an F-15 (approx. 2300mls/4000km) without refueling - couldn't reach and return. Not to mention with inflight refueling.

View attachment 861201

How about MOST of Russia coming in from the north or coming in from the East. But coming in from the west, the F-15E Nuke carriers can easily reach Moscow.

I trimmed the garbage you posted.

 

[Kruska]

How about MOST of Russia coming in from the north or coming in from the East. But coming in from the west, the F-15E Nuke carriers can easily reach Moscow.

There isn't a single spot in Russia aka the Russian Federation that an F-15 couldn't reach and return. Without even having to refuel over Russian territory.

I trimmed the garbage you posted.

Just because you don't understand something, e.g. RASIGMA, doesn't make it garbage.

 

[postman]

The most iconic Fighter-Aircraft in the 70'ies, to me was the A-10 Fairchild Republic Thunderbolt II.

Literally an aircraft build around a canon - and most likely being the exact aircraft that would be needed most in the event of a war at the time. Revolutionary in design and purpose.

The A-10 wasn't a fighter aircraft, hence the designation "A" for attack. It was a ground support aircraft named the warthog for both it's utilitarian looks, and it's slow top speed (420 mph) that they joked was the only aircraft in the inventory that took bird strikes from the rear.

 

[postman]

Interesting to note is that despite the F-16's revolutionary design, it was also the last US Fighter Aircraft to enter service displaying a single fin

The Fighter Aircraft that would kick off the double or twin fins was to be the F-14 - aside from the YF-17 that only came into service in the 80'ies as the F-18.

The twin tail was big for a couple of reasons, not the least the need for extra "tail" especially in supersonic flight in case an engine stalled. (remember the scene from Top Gun). Plus twin tails were lower than a single vertical tail, meaning less drag, and less roll force. And of course with the advent of stealth, being canted at an angle to avoid the right angle acting as a radar reflector.

 

[Kruska]

The A-10 wasn't a fighter aircraft, hence the designation "A" for attack. It was a ground support aircraft named the warthog for both it's utilitarian looks, and it's slow top speed (420 mph) that they joked was the only aircraft in the inventory that took bird strikes from the rear.

Depends on one's definition - a fixed wing aircraft that has the armament and capability to shot down other aircraft belongs into the category of fighter-aircraft in my opinion. And e.g. a transport aircraft or a helicopter are also both aircraft and were part of the A-10's menu. That the A-10's foremost task was CAS, aka ground attack is known.
That is why I did not include e.g. the S-3A Viking - also an exceptional aircraft of the 70'ies, with a secondary capability in land strike support and aerial refueling - the later enhanced S-3B was even equipped to fire the AGM-65E Maverick, but definitely the Viking wasn't a fighter-aircraft.

 

[postman]

Depends on one's definition - a fixed wing aircraft that has the armament and capability to shot down other aircraft belongs into the category of fighter-aircraft in my opinion.

Craft like the A-10 or S-3 were slow by modern fighter standards, and extremely vulnerable. They were designed for the ground / naval support roles as they couldn't go "toe to toe" with soviet MIGS three times as fast.

 

[citygator]

My dad flew F4 Phantoms. Says it was the perfect fighting plane if you wanted to go fast and dont have the need to ever turn.

 

[Kruska]

Craft like the A-10 or S-3 were slow by modern fighter standards, and extremely vulnerable. They were designed for the ground / naval support roles as they couldn't go "toe to toe" with soviet MIGS three times as fast.

As I had stated - an e.g. A-10 doesn't need to go "toe to toe" with a MiG, if there are plenty of helicopters or transport aircraft to be taken down. The A-10 is a Fighter-Aircraft.

BTW - if you check e.g. britannica.com for the definition of Fighter Aircraft - you get to see this photo:

 

[Kruska]

My dad flew F4 Phantoms. Says it was the perfect fighting plane if you wanted to go fast and dont have the need to ever turn.

My father would "fervently" oppose you and your dad - according to him the best Fighter-Aircraft ever, was his beloved F-104G, and he even took on flight challenges to demonstrate this against the F-4. He made headlines in the local paper due to having obliterated a 100+ windows when performing a sound barrier against an F-4 over the city of Augsburg. IIRC he was the oldest or second oldest fellow in the Luftwaffe to fly an F-104G.

BTW the Luftwaffe slang for the F-4, was "Luftverteidigungsdiesel“ - Air Defense Diesel.

 

[WorldWatcher]

 

[AveMarica]

Funny, as late as 1980, some Buffs were loaded with free fall nukes. I guess they didn't get the memo. Actually, Standoffs weren't that reliable as early as the "Memo". The Migs just made it happen faster.

B-52s being loaded with free fall nukes doesn't invalidate the fact that stand-off nuclear weapons were specifically developed for B-52s due to the threat of SAMs, not the MIG-25 as you incorrectly claimed. The reliability of the weapon is a completely irrelevant red herring, what we are talking about is what motivated DoD to develop standoff nuclear weapons. The timeline:

1956 = DoD decides they need to develop standoff nuclear weapons for the B-52 because of SAM threat
1959 = USAF deploys Hound Dog missiles on B-52
1964 = DoD issues requirement for smaller standoff missile since B-52 could only carry two Hound Dogs
1966 = DoD awards development of SRAM to Boeing
1969 = MiG-25 enters service with the Soviet Union

Clearly any claims that the MiG-25 was the reason that standoff nuclear weapons were created is false. The fact that USAF still uses gravity nuclear bombs, or questions about the reliability of the weapons they developed don't make it true.

 

[Kruska]

On the French part - only the Mirage F-1 springs into my mind

Not really a decisive future design - but unique in a way that it was the only solely Dassault produced fighter aircraft that had abandoned the traditional Delta-wing configuration - reintroduced in 1984 via the Mirage 2000.

When France announced its intention to withdraw from NATO’s integrated military organization in 1966, the Air Force began focusing on an interceptor with secondary penetration capabilities. Dassault’s engineering department started working on the Mirage F3, but finally shelved the plans because the withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military organization entailed reshuffling the entire combat equipment policy. The successive cancellations left Dassault without a successor for its Mirage III. The need to overcome that deadlock, and to secure a future if the variable-sweep aircraft program was also aborted, led Marcel Dassault to start working on a new prototype, the Mirage F1, a smaller version than the Mirage F2 and Mirage F3.

One of the Mirage F1’s features is its ample airspeed variations. It can fly at Mach 2 and land at 125 knots, thanks to its wing’s extraordinary lift augmentation from its leading edge nose and double-slot flaps which are gruelingly difficult to fit on thin wings.

It all started with the Mirage F1 01

Mirage F1: origins, characteristics and performance data

The F1 interceptor can fly at over Mach 2 and land at 125 knots. It completed its maiden flight on December 23, 1966 at Melun-Villaroche.

www.dassault-aviation.com

Equipped with an interim Snecma Atar 9 K 31 jet engine, the Mirage F1 01 made its first flight on December 23, 1966 at Melun-Villaroche piloted by René Bigand. On January 7, 1967, he reached Mach 2 on the 4th flight.

Mirage F1 02 (Atar P l 31) accomplished its first flight at Istres on March 20, 1969 piloted by Jean-Marie Saget and reached Mach 1.15. Mirage F1 03 equipped with a Snecma 9 K 50 engine flew on September 18, 1969, and Mirage F1 04 equipped with all the on-board electronics designed for the production aircraft, on June 17, 1970.

On March 14, 1974, it was delivered to the Air Force. The production models differed from the prototypes by the installation of slotted leading edge (inspired by the Jaguar) on the outboard two thirds of the wing, which increased the maximum angle of attack. As with the other serially-produced aircraft, a number of partner firms and subcontractors were involved in production.

The Mirage F1 led to the creations of several versions.

The Mirage F1 C
The Mirage F1 C was the basic version optimized for all-weather all-altitude air defense. Later, two new versions (the Mirage F1 CR and the Mirage F1 CT) were used to equip the Air Force when the Mirage III R and III E reached the end of their term.

The Mirage F1 A
It was the day version of the F1 C with simplified electronic equipment and additional fuel capacity. This version was realized at the request of South Africa as the F1 AZ.

The Mirage F1 B
It was the two-seat version of the Mirage F1 C. This version, initially developed at the request of Kuwait was also acquired by the French Air Force.

The Mirage F1 R
Optimized for low-altitude day and night reconnaissance, the Mirage F1 R was the export version of the F1 CR used by the French Air Force.

From the outset, the Mirage F1 was an export success : 473 aircraft equipped the Air Forces of several countries.

Personally I love this bird - especially with the former South-African markings.

 

[AZrailwhale]

My dad flew F4 Phantoms. Says it was the perfect fighting plane if you wanted to go fast and dont have the need to ever turn.

The Phantom was a perfect example of the fact that anything will fly if you strap big enough engines on it.

 

[postman]

As I had stated - an e.g. A-10 doesn't need to go "toe to toe" with a MiG, if there are plenty of helicopters or transport aircraft to be taken down. The A-10 is a Fighter-Aircraft.

BTW - if you check e.g. britannica.com for the definition of Fighter Aircraft - you get to see this photo:

View attachment 861504

And each of those aircraft were the fastest thing in the sky at the time.

"Speed is life" is a saying among fighter pilots. The fighter pilot's motto, “Speed is Life,” is the gospel in combat,

 

[postman]

The Phantom was a perfect example of the fact that anything will fly if you strap big enough engines on it.

Actually that was more like the F-104 starfighter.


To extract as much raw speed as possible, Johnson cut the F-104 down to the bare essentials; the new jet was essentially an engine with a cockpit and wings bolted onto it. The F-104 is basically a jet engine with some control surfaces.