Are the replacements as good as the original?

The main point of the newer aircraft are survivability, F111s, A6s, A7s, and even the F4 would have no chance agianst Mig 29s and SU27s. The Hornet , F16s and so on have the chance to dump bombs and kill em. Imagine a F111 trying to fight back. F16s weren't designed to carry a heavy load, more to get it to the target in the first place.

Yes one F111 could carry the load of 6 F16s but the 6 F16s would have to go anyway to protect it. I don't think the F16 with 2 1,000lbs was max loaded, chances are it was loaded for a certain mission, no point carrying more than you need, waste of fuel.

Modern combat is more surgical, kill one target not the whole street.

Berny,
I have to agree with Andy - effective mission completion and pilot (and aircraft) survivability are really the most important issues involved here. Theres literally thousands upon thousands of man hours contributed by literally hundreds of people to get one pilot up to mission status and an expenditure of tens of millions of dollars for the complete package of pilot/aircraft/support team.
If that asset can be nullified by a 30 year old surface to air or air to air missile, then it's a liability and not an asset.
The current crop of fighting aircraft might not be able to carry as much and fly as far as some of the older planes, but their ability to "shoot em in the eyes" and return home safely must be one of the ultimate determining factors as to which aircraft reaches operational status - then there's the need for possible future upgrades - can the a/c be easily modified to allow for an expanded or enhanced mission profile, and how many times can it be upgraded?
Many of the older, now retired aircraft sure had "style" and tough looks, but in today's combat environment would probably have a rather short survival life.
Cheers,
LeeTree

Any strike package will have a CAP or escort package. Even in Desert Storm the F-15E had F-15C escort. The Navy provided the F-14A/D as CAP and escort. So it is not so much having to fight your way in and out of the target area. That is what the fighters job is.

In strikes over North Viet Nam there would usually be four CAP aircraft on target to take care of 12 to 16 strike aircraft. The strike package would be escorted by another four fighters.The only time a strike package would have to fight it out of the target area is if a fighter managed to get through the CAP or escort.

A strike package consist of SEADS. CAP, escort, and strike as well as support aircraft such as tankers, AWACS, SAR and recon. It is more than sending a flight of four, loaded with bombs and expect them to fight their way to the target, hit the target, and then fight their way home.

When you load an acft with two drop tanks, ECM pod, two bombs and two short range missiles, make two in flight refuelings and fly a distance of only six hundred miles, that is not very cost effective. Add in the package that has to go with them and it is less cost effective. Just so four aircraft can drop eight non guided dumb bombs.

In the early 70's the USAF called for the development of a new generation of lightweight fighters. These were to be single seat jet aircraft with an emphasis on agility and air combat maneuvering. Among the requirements were a high thrust-to-weight ratio (above 1 to 1), and good acceleration. This led to the birth of what has come to be known as the "Lightweight Fighter Program", of which both the F-16 and, indirectly, the F/A-18 were borne.

In January 1972, several American manufacturers were engaged by the USAF to submit design specifications which would lead to the development of a true lightweight air superiority fighter. Both General Dynamics and Northrop were further engaged to build evaluation prototypes, but there was no promise made for a follow-on production contract. Hence, the F-16 and the YF-17 were initially concieved purely as speculative demonstrators of advanced technologies.

There were only a small number of specified performance goals and both contractors were free to build a prototype of their idea of what a lightweight air superiority fighter should be. Northrop's entry was the twin-engine YF-17 which incorporated breakthrough aerodynamic technologies. General Dynamics' entry, the YF-16, was a compact aircraft built around a single F100 engine. Aerodynamically an inherently unstable design, the YF-16 was equipped with an electronic flight control system which has come to be known as "fly by wire".

At some point during the development stage, the stakes changed; this was no longer a technology demonstration. It became a DoD competition to find a new fighter for the Air Force, the Navy and for allied nations as well. Based on the evaluation of the YF-16 and YF-17, the USAF initiated the Air Combat Fighter (ACF) Program. The Navy was also looking to develop a new multi-role strike fighter (VFAX) to replace both the F-4 and the A-7. (The VFAX was not intended to replace the A-6.)

Both the YF-16 and the YF-17 showed great promise at the end of the Lightweight Fighter competition in 1975. In fact, both were selected for military service. The USAF chose the F-16 which, initially, was to equip units within the Tactical Air Command. The Navy was directed by Congress to base the VFAX on either the YF-16 or YF-17 designs. Less than pleased with this outcome, the Navy proceeded independently with a derivative of the YF-17. In order to satisfy carrier suitability requirements, an extensive redesign was undertaken by McDonnell Douglas with Northrop as a junior partner and this resulted in the F/A-18 Hornet.

So, the F-16 was never envisioned as a purely air to ground platform. It was, after the conclusion of the ACF Program, intended as a purely air to air fighter. Later it found a place within the Air Force structure as a team player in air to air operations as part of a "high-low mix" that would use inexpensive F-16's at relatively low level in concert with more capable and high-flying F-15's.

Ultimately, however, the F-16 was touted as a multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) and used in a role for which it was, initially, not intended. The F-16 was, therefore, the replacement for the aging F-4 fleet. But, even with it's use as an MRCA the F-16 was not intended to replace the F-111. I believe that it's the F-15E that can claim to have done so.

The F/A-18 was first thought, by contemporary popular belief, to have been slated for production in two variants, the F-18 and the A-18. It was clear, however, that a single airframe configuration could easily allow the Hornet's employment in both the fighter and strike roles. Hence the designation, F/A-18. It was, indeed, intended to replace the F-4 and the A-7, but NOT the A-6.

The A-6, thus far, has not been replaced. The F/A-18E/F is considered by many to be a replacement for the A-6, but this is not the case. The "Super Hornet", in these days of fiscal woes, is simply a logical attempted advancement of an already capable MRCA design.

The main reason that the F-16 and F/A-18 are perceived to have replaced seemingly more capable aircraft (in roles for which they were not intended) is because of cost-consciousness.

The older aircraft were more expensive to maintain. Also, there has been, for quite a long time now, a move towards commonality within each service and a strong desire for inter-service commonality not enjoyed since the heyday of the F-4.

The shorter the list of different types of aircraft in service means a shorter list of different types of spare parts needed to keep them flying AND, in some cases, a shorter list of associated support and maintenance equipment.

A shorter list of different types of spare parts and associated support and maintenance equipment means a shorter list of associated development costs for said parts and equipment AND a shorter list of training classes to teach folks how to use these parts and associated equipment to maintain the aircraft.

You can also apply a similar train of thought to aircrews and their training. All this goes on down the line to the realm of administrative activity, less paperwork and such. And there are other associated costs that could be factored in but, as usual, I've already written a novel here. In the end, this all means less money spent. As regards operational capability...

Capability is no longer judged by size of payload. Technology is responsible for this. With the advent and development of PGM's (Precision Guided Munitions) and their associated guidance equipment the latest variants of the present-day F-16 or F/A-18 employing such weapons can be considered more capable than an F-111 or A-6 of yesterday.

And contrary to the notion that F-16's and F/A-18's only drop "non guided dumb bombs", the vast majority of the munitions used nowadays are PGM's.

To a lesser degree, operational range is also less important. It is true that the A-6 and the F-111 have a greater range than an F/A-18 or F-16. But both of the former were employed in the deep-strike role, the intention of which is to attack targets deep within enemy territory.

The need for such a deep-strike capability remains, but the tools of the trade have changed somewhat. Such far-reaching striking power is now provided by cruise missles and the B-2.
F-16's and F/A-18's are not truly able or even fully expected to perform such tasks.

And I can hear some screaming out there: "Whaddya mean range is less important?" I can answer that question with two words. Aerial refueling. The range of a combat aircraft is usually utilized in as logical and efficient a manner as possible, but aerial refueling will alway be necessary, even if USAF F-111's and F-4's were still flying.

It was implied above that air refueling a modern aircraft twice is not cost-effective. In order to validate such a statement, one would have to compare fuel capacities and rate of fuel consumption for the aircraft in question.

I don't have the necessary information to do so, so I shall not make a judgement as to which is more cost effective; a gas guzzling F-111 or F-4, or a comparatively fuel efficient F-16 or F/A-18. Regardless, I don't think that there's much more explanation needed on this subject. But...

In the face of cruise missles and high-flying stealth bombers some argue that there is no substitution for the presence of a pair of eyes connected to a thinking brain in the immediate target area. And I myself agree with this. But I beg that you don't forget the F-15E! (Nor the F/A-18E/F which is also to be employed in a similar role.)

Survivability is also an issue as has been pointed out already. A strike package is all well and good, but there will always be instances where the strike aircraft will have to get out of a tight spot.

Such an occurrence was there in the Gulf War (Gulf 1 or the First Gulf War as some call it) when an F/A-18C shot down a MiG-21 on it's way to a target. The CAP won't always be able to get there in time to help. Sadly, the air war over Vietnam illustrated this all too well.

Speaking of strike packages, the presence of escort, recce, refueling and battlefield management assets, as well as those for the suppression of enemy air defenses, would be necessary regardless of the type of aircraft in the striking force. So the matter of cost effectiveness of the strike package is irrelevant. Unless, of course, the strike aircraft can defend themselves well enough to avoid, say, extra fuel consumption by escorting fighters screaming in to the rescue at full burner.

It was stated that the only time a strike package would have to fight it's way out of the target area is if an enemy fighter managed to get through the CAP. In that case, if I were one of the strike pilots, I'd rather be flying an F-16 or F/A-18 than an A-6 or F-111. Or an F-4 for that matter.

So, it's not exactly fair to say that the F-16 and F/A-18 don't measure up to some of their predecessors.

Fade to Black...

modern Precision weapons are also a factor in the thinking behind the newer breed of warplane

The shortleggednness (or the ability of the aircraft to operate in relatively limited range) is now an almost obsolete problem because of the existence of air tankers. With them, any fighter/attack aircraft would be able to go anywhere in the world, and can only be hampered by pilot and structure fatigue.
With range being out of question, the efficiency of the aircraft compared to the price would be the most important factor. F-16's and F/A18's can be used as fighter and attack planes with little or no modification. Also they are far cheaper than the previous models and therefore can be deployed in larger numbers, thus countering the load that can be carried by an older but more expensive aircraft.

~~~MarkY

PS. I still think the F-20 should have survived the market.

QUOTE: Originally posted by markuz226 PS. I still think the F-20 should have survived the market.

And the politics.

I'm with you there, Mark. It SHOULD have, but didn't. "Twas a great performer. And awful 'perty, too!

Such is the world we live in...


Fade to Black...

Some very good points were brought up. One was survibality. It was said that the older acft could not survive in todays enviroment against MIG-29's and SU-27's. The SU-27 has the advantage over any thing the US can put up against it, except for the F-14. Thanks to Iran, the former Soviet Union was able to get and copy the F-14 radar and AIM-54 missiles. Its radar has look down, shoot down long range intercept, just like the F-14. The F-4 radar has much greater range than the F-16 and about the same range as the F-18. The F-4 radar is about the same as the MIG-29. The F-15 has a more powerful radar and would be able to pick up any enemy acft, before they could pick him up, with the exception of the SU-27. They would be able to shoot the atacker in the face if needed too. The F-16 would be on the MIG-29 radar and a possible missile on the way before it got within radar range of the F-16. One factor in todays wars is Comand, Control and Battle Field Management (CCBFM). This is done by AWACS. Any strike package or fighter package can be given advanced warning of any possible enemy aircraft intercept. The F-18's in DS-1 that shot down two MIG-21 is an example. There were three reports released right after the shoot down. One report said F-18's fully loaded with four 2,000 pound bombs were jumped by the MIG's and during the dog fight the 18's destroyed the MIG's. Another report said fully loaded F-18's came across two MIG-21's and engaged them in a dog fight and destroyed them. Another report said the F-18's were attacking an airbase, loaded with four 2,000 pound bombs. They had dropped two when they were attacked by the MIG's. They engaged the MIG's in a dog fight and destroyed them. They continued attacking the air field. The report released by the Navy Department four or five years after the war told the complete story. Two F-18's were bombing an enemy air field. They had dropped two 2,000 pound bombs when AWACS notified them that enemy aircraft were in the area. The Hornets were vectored in for a six o'clock attack. They closed to visual range and the lead fired a Aim-9 at the second MIG-21. The lead MIG seeing his wing man explode started making a hard turn, right in front of the second Hornet. He fired an AIM-7, destroying the second MIG. It was a classic "Shoot them in the back" intercept. In all fairness, even the old F-4 under the same conditions could have done the same thing. Other acft, such as the A-6 and F-111 would have had time to evade the fighters. When it comes to the F-111 it is very fast at low level.

Another factor in survibality is AAA and SAM's. Most of these can be avoided by the use of ECM jammers. Any pilot will tell you the thing he fears most is the un educated, under paid soldier on the other side of a hill with a sholder fired weapon. It doesn't care what type of acft you are. It is heat seeking and gives you no warning lights. That is only in Howllywood. That is why you see an acft coming off of an attack, dumping flares.

Another comment was that the newer acft are cheaper. That is just the reverse, The older acft were much more cheaper than the newer acft and are always going over budget and costing more as time goes on.

It was brought up about PGM's. During DS-1 the F-16 did not drop any PGM's because they were not equiped to guide them. They have now been modified to carry them. The problem with the F-16 is its short range due to being so drag critical. One quote from DS-1. "As one Air Force official put it, The light weight fighter proved to be just that. It was the least effective in the war. Although used in greater numbers than any other combat aircraft, the damage caused by the F-16 was minimal when compared to other aircraft types". Another Air Force LtCol said " Take this tinker toy away and give us back the Phantom. At least that way we can fly beyond our own lines and attack the enemy".

In flight refueling (IFR) has been used for many years. The tanker fleet operates back away from the front in friendly air space. Usually about 100 nm from enemy air space and SAM threats. Here are some facts on combat radius. Figuring in drag factor, combat weight with four 2,,000 pound bombs, two 370 gal drop tanks, two AIM-9's, two AIM-7's, and an ECM pod. I am using the chart from the F-4E-1.
F-16=314 NM. F-18=540 NM. F-4=852 NM. F-111=1,405 NM. F-14=1,340 NM. F-15C=954 NM. F-15E=1,139 NM. (Without AIM-7's) A-6=1,077 NM. A-7=715 NM. The Navy acft do not use ECM pods so I subtracted the weight of 535 pounds and drag factor of 18.

What everything in the military boils down to is this: there's not enough money and equipment out there to do what we want to do. The biggest reason most of the aircraft have taken on multiple roles is that, bottom line, it's cheaper to train 60 pilots / air crew / support personnel on 4 aircraft than it is to train the same group on 10 different aircraft. If a particular bird can fill the role of 2 or 3 mission specific aircraft, why not? Most combat jets are designed today to handle multiple roles and missions within the strike force / airwing / battle group. Gone are the days of the 700 ship Navy. There's just no funding for large, diversified squadrons anymore, but our mission statement keeps getting more broad, and with it our "Big Brother" status to the rest of the world.

Granted, there are still several specialist A/C out there. For example, the A-6 airframe has been completely replaced by the EA-6B. This allows for one aircraft to replace the ECM pods on all strike and support aircraft in her sortie.

I also agree that range is a big concern. With the FA-18, the pilots had just enough fuel in the tanks to get off the carrier deck before refueling. This problem has been minimally corrected with the Super Hornets, but not to any significant degree. The big picture is survivability. The 18 is infinitely more manuverable than the F-4 ever could hope to be. Sure, the 4 could carry more ordinance, but the losses incurred by the pilots themselves was unreal. I would much rather spend more on fuel than on a pilot's life.

Technologies have also pushed the envelope. The F-14 has over-the-horizon missile capabilities that no other aircraft can touch. EA-6B's can actually lock out the enemies weapons systems from miles away. With the advent of new systems that increase the safety and survivability of the fighters, I'm afraid the older platforms are just becoming obsolete. I hate to see the Tomcats go, but the Super Hornet is already waiting in the wings (no pun intended) to take her place.

Well looking at a scan with my eyes with they typed ill make simple for all of us. Being that i love A-10's ........... out with old in with the new and one more thing Multi role!!!!

"Are the replacements as good as the original? " I don't know, but the military seems to think so...

but either way... it has been proven that a well trained pilot in a well maintained su-27 or mig-29 will be more than just a handsful for a well trained pilot in any of our (US) current best fighter aircraft. (i've red and heard accounts that they could literally fly circles around our f-15's)

It has also been proven that a better trained pilot, in an inferior performance aircraft, will more often than not outdo a not so well trained pilot in a superior machine.

I just hope our pilots are getting the best training our taxpayer money dishes out, because shooting down a mig-21 is no longer such an incredible feat, going by today's technology standards. it's that su-27 pilot with that "point and shoot" helmet that i'd be worried about in the future, but that's just me

As far as the f-15 and f-14 replacement... i don't think anyone likes the idea of them being phased out, but you're talking about aircraft developed in the 60's, although constantly upgraded. Stealth seems to be the predominant technology right now, and neither one of those can claim fame in that field. not to mention 60's-80's technology seems to have become to expensive to maintain.

just my take on it.

Look, the Royal Navy replaced it's F4's with Sea Harriers. Wanna talk dissapointment?

Snibble - LOL!!!

The A-10 was developed to take over the role played by the USAF A-1 Skyraiders in Vietnam. Many felt at the time they should just re-open the A-1 production lines!