Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "Boeing 818 TFX; The Actual Aardvark?" video.

The B was not originally intended to be an air superiority fighter -- it started as an update of the Douglas F6D Missileer fleet defense aircraft. But Navy air combat and equipment doctrine was evolving in the light of Vietnam combat experience, and they realized that also needed an air superiority fighter to replace the F-8 and F-4. They also realized that they would not get the money for that in addition to the F-111B, so they decided the F-111B would now have to be an air superiority fighter as well as a fleet defense missileer. As you know the F-111 was a great plane in many ways but it was not a dogfighter, so the Navy was wisely allowed to withdraw from the TFX program that no longer made sense for its needs.
3
The needs of USAF and USN were not incompatible in this case. The idea that one basic airframe could fulfill two different roles was not a dumb idea at all. History is full of examples of aircraft that were versatile enough to fly for different services and even perform different missions. Both USAF and USN were asking for a large aircraft that could lift a heavy load of fuel and weapons, with long range or loiter, plus high-speed dash or intercept. Twin engines and an innovative variable geometry wing were called for, and Macnamara logically assessed that it would be wasteful to develop two very expensive advanced airframes when a single one with minor variations could do both jobs. The reason one airframe could do both jobs was because the original USN specification was for a fleet defense fighter, not an air superior fighter. It was not originally intended to be what became the F-14, but to perform the role meant for the Douglas F6D Missileer with the addition of supersonic dash capability. The biggest difference between the airframe requirements of the two services was that USAF wanted a tandem cockpit and USN want side by side seating. Boeing tried to make both services happy, but MacNamara’s DOD thought USAF could suck it up and have the crew sit side by side. This is ironic considering that when the Navy cancelled its version USAF was stuck with the cockpit it didn’t want, which also ironically contributed to the airplane being too heavy for a fighter. The original idea wasn’t dumb -- what happened was that needs changed. USN revised its specifications for the TFX as result of combat experience in Vietnam. They realized that they also needed an air superiority fighter to replace the F-8 and F-4, but couldn’t afford that in addition to a dedicated fleet defense aircraft. Thus, the TFX would now have to be able to dogfight as well as be a missile interceptor. The F-111B could have worked as a missileer, but it was too fat and underpowered to compete as an air superiority fighter. It was proper to recognize that the needs of USN had evolved, and this was perhaps the beginning of the Navy realizing that budgets and hangar decks did not have room for so many specialized aircraft. USAF desperately needed the F-111 to replace the F-105, so they sucked it up and accepted the heavy airframe caused by the loveseat cockpit they never wanted.
2
Don't forget the F-117.
2
The fact that the Navy accepted the dorsal mounted intakes is unsurprising in light of the fact that its original requirement was for a heavy fleet defense aircraft, not an air superiority fighter. A dorsal intake had also been used by the proposed North American F-107 for USAF. That one severely restricted reward visibility, but again it didn't matter because the F-107 was to be fighter bomber, not a dogfighter. The F-111 design also had poor reward visibility, as well as side-by-side seating at the insistence of the Navy, both indications that it was not meant to be a dogfighter. The Navy eventually realized it also needed to develop an air superiority fighter. But the budgetary environment could not support two new aircraft, so they had to develop one aircraft to perform both the fleet defense and air superiority roles. By then the F-111design was unsuitable, so the Navy withdrew from the program and initiated development of a new new aircraft that would become the F-14. One of first things they ditched was the side by side seating, in favor of the tandem seating which USAF had wanted all along. None is this is an indication that McNamara's goal was unreasonable--it was reasonable for the initial requirements presented by both services, but the needs of the Navy evolved.
1
Nah, the F-15 was already under development, and it was a better airplane for the USAF than the F-14. Here we are with everybody pontificating about how joint fighter program are doomed to fail, and you want to hobble USAF with a fighter that would underperform what they needed.
1
@starga-fr7qx If I had a nickel from everyone who thinks John Boyd or his biography are the Oracle of truth, I would be rich. I’ve read the book, and much more over the many years. I don’t worship the man or the book, because I’ve read more than one book. I don’t care if the F-14 was ahead in flight testing, it was not the right fighter for USAF. Your attempt to characterize the considered judgment of the USAF as “panic” is misleading and parochial. Two spurious non-arguments there. You may not like to hear this, but the F-15 was better at what it was designed to do than the F-14 would have been. The fact that you can find a web article by a former F-14 pilot who actually claims the F-14 was not meant to dogfight should interest you. He’s wrong of course, but that should tell you something about his estimation of the comparative virtues of the F-14 and F-15. And which airplane is still flying today because it remains relevant to the needs of the service? Case closed.
1
If I had a nickel from everyone who thinks John Boyd or his biography are the Oracle of truth, I would be rich. I’ve read the book, and much more over the many years. I don’t worship the man or the book, because I’ve read more than one book. I don’t care if the F-14 was ahead in flight testing, it was not the right fighter for USAF. Your attempt to characterize the considered judgment of the USAF as “panic” is misleading and parochial. Two spurious non-arguments there. You may not like to hear this, but the F-15 was better at what it was designed to do than the F-14 would have been. The fact that you can find a web article by a former F-14 pilot who actually claims the F-14 was not meant to dogfight should interest you. He’s wrong of course, but that should tell you something about his estimation of the comparative virtues of the F-14 and F-15. And which airplane is still flying today because it remains relevant to the needs of the service? Case closed.
1
@starga-fr7qx You are simply wrong in so many ways. There is no point in trying to argue with a fan who is so misinformed, so go ahead and hold on to your fantasies.
1
@starga-fr7qx There's no arguing with somebody who makes up his own facts. You can say the F-14 was the better fighter all day long but that does not make it so, and certainly does not make it the better airplane for USAF. AIMVAL/ACEVAL did not prove the F-14 was the better fighter. You are clearly an F-14 fan who can't follow the reality and it's a waste of time to try to convince you.
1
@starga-fr7qx Repeating your mistaken opinions does not make them facts. You don't understand AIMVAL/ACEVAL, or why the F-14 was unsuitable for USAF, and I'm not interested in trying to educate you. Have a nice day.
1
The original requirements presented by the Navy and USAF were not incompatible, but the requirements changed. The lessons of the TFX program are commonly misinterpreted, but repeat a narrative for decades and it becomes "truth". The idea that one basic airframe could fulfill two different roles was not a dumb idea at all. History is full of examples of aircraft that were versatile enough to fly for different services and even perform different missions. Initially the TFX program was reasonable because USAF and USN were both asking for a large aircraft that could lift a heavy load of fuel and weapons, with long range or long loiter, plus high-speed dash or intercept. Twin engines and an innovative variable geometry wing were called for, and DOD logically assessed that it would be wasteful to develop two very expensive advanced airframes when a single one with some variations could do both jobs. The reason one basic airframe could do both jobs was because original USN specification was for a fleet defense fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It was not originally intended to be what later became the F-14, but to perform the role meant for the Douglas F6D Missileer, with the addition of supersonic dash capability. The biggest difference between the airframe requirements of the two services was that USAF wanted a tandem cockpit and USN want side by side seating. Boeing tried to make both services happy, but MacNamara’s DOD thought USAF could suck it up and have the crew sit side by side. This is ironic considering that when the Navy cancelled its version USAF was stuck with the cockpit it didn’t want, which also ironically contributed to the airplane being too ungainly for a dogfighter. The original idea wasn’t dumb -- what happened was that needs changed. USN revised its specifications for the TFX as result of combat experience in Vietnam, and realized they also needed an air superiority fighter to replace the F-8 and F-4, but couldn’t afford that in addition to a dedicated fleet defense aircraft. Thus, the TFX would now have to be able to dogfight as well as be a missile interceptor. The F-111B could have worked as a missileer, but it was too fat and underpowered to compete as an air superiority fighter. It was proper of the Navy to recognize that its needs had evolved. This was perhaps the beginning of the Navy realizing that budgets and hangar decks did not have room for so many specialized aircraft. USAF desperately needed the F-111 to replace the F-105, so they sucked it up and accepted the heavy airframe caused by the loveseat cockpit they never wanted.
1
@johnshepherd8687 Yes, the Navy version of the TFX had originally been intended to fulfill the role of the cancelled F6D Missileer with an added supersonic dash capability. Combat experience in Vietnam convinced the Navy that it also need a new air superiority fighter. They knew they could not get two new fighter aircraft at the same time, so they pulled out of the TFX program to develop an airplane for air superiority as well as fleet defense. The irony is that the the side-by-side crew seating that the Navy insisted on over USAF wishes helped make the F-111 unsuitable as a fighter. If they had allowed a tandem cockpit it might have made the design more like the F-14 from the beginning, which we now know could also carry bombs.
1
@johnshepherd8687 As far as I can tell we are saying the same thing about the original intent of the F-111B. Then the Navy requirement changed, quite justifiably. As far as the F-4 vs the F-8 that is separate subject, and in any case the F-14 replaced them both.
1
@johnshepherd8687 I do separate it becuse I'm discussing what was, not what might have been if the planets had aligned differently. YouTube is awash with videos and comments claiming this or that superior airplane was down-selected for production in favor of an inferior plane. You obviously believe the Crusader III would have been far superior to and longer lived than the F-4. I say maybe, maybe not, but the F-4 is what we had.
1
@johnshepherd8687 I am not interested in talking about an airplane that never was, I'm the one trying to NOT talk about the Crusader III. I am not saying it's not an interesting topic in its own right, and I'm not saying you opinion on that airplane is wrong. I'm just saying that it's not relevant to the point I was making. These YouTube discussion always seem to drift off topic, so I will summarize mine for you. The TFX goal of a single basic airframe for both USAF and Navy was not unreasonable. Both missions called for an airplane with good cruise/loiter fuel economy as well as high as high speed dash. A large airplane with a high fuel fraction and variable geometry wings was need for both, and it made sense for DOD to try to develop one rather than two such expensive projects. The common narrative that the airplane was expected to do all things or vastly different things is a myth. Nobody expected the airframe to be a dogfighter, and it would have worked well as a Missileer as well as a strike aircraft. One need only look at the Panavia Tornado for an example of a similar project that succeeded. The F-111B did not fail to meet the requirement; the Navy (wisely) changed it's mind about what it required.
1
@johnshepherd8687 What airplane was a piece of paper? There were more F-111Bs built than F8U-3s. I don't know what you are talking about, but whatever, it doesn't matter. Nice chatting with you.
1
@johnshepherd8687 You're not listening. The F-111 IS mentioned in the video, but the F-4 and F-8 are not, but you just don't want to give up talking about them. The only thing I addressed was the common misconception that the TFX project was a dumb idea and that the F-111 could never have fulfilled both roles. You are raising a different subject, and I'm done with it.
1