Comments by "mpetersen6" (@mpetersen6) on "The Navy's Alternatives To The F-14 Tomcat Were A Fascinating Mix Of Good Ideas. Some Of Them French" video.

  1. It is what happens when a project spans numerous administrations from the time the services ask for proposals until entering service. If it was just the airframe and engines the time to first flight would be much shorter. Add in all of the radar and weapons systems. Along with requests to match changing needs or requirements. Then see what happens. The US Navy used to do a lot of business with Petersen Ship Building in Sturgeon Bay Wisconsin. Primarily support and auxiliary ships. Petersen finally walked away from submitting for contracts because they were sick and tired of having to tear apart partially finished vessels because the Navy changed their minds. They now build top tier pleasure craft. Much less hassle.
    7
  2. The Missileer wasn't really a bad concept. The airframe almost looks like an up dated Skyknight. The big problem is the overall slow speed of the airframe. Just no dash capability at all. Of course if the launch aircraft could hand off the misdile to a guidance aircraft then you are just dealing with a missile truck.
    5
  3. While in concept the idea of common airframes across services to save money sounds great. In practice the needs of a land based versus the needs of a carrier based air force will result in vastly different versions of the same aircraft. Look at the F-35. Of course McNamara came out of the auto industry as a cost specialist. In the auto industry it is common for different models to share many common components. Amazingly though two very good aircraft did result in cross service use in the US. The F-4 and the A-7. Every other airframe used by both the USAF and the USN was a land based airframe.
    3
  4. The Iranian experience with the F-14 proves two things. First is be careful who you sell front line equipment to. Second is never, ever assume that your now non friends are dummies.
    3
  5. American politics work?
    2
  6. The big strength of the F-15 lies in its radar support aircraft. No mistake the F-15 is a superb aircraft. Why else would we be seeing new airframes being delivered in 2024. Was the F-15 the best fighter of its era? In some ways it's an open question. Did the F-15 ever really meet peer aircraft and peer pilots in combat? For that matter the US Navy overmatched any opponent with the F-14. How well did Iranian F-14s do against the Iraqis. It amazes me that the Iranians are still able to keep at least some of them operational. But then l did still see a comment on YouTube the other day about how one person said some of the best mechanical and electrical engineers he had ever worked with came out of Iran.
    2
  7. I've wondered about the idea of BUFFs or B-ONEs equiped with the Tomcats radar and armed with Phoenix missiles. And by missiles l mean 4 to 6 times the number of missiles carried by the F-14. If the Cold War had ever turned hot the ability to ambush Soviet Naval Aviation Badgers and Backfires before they could get into range of convoys would make a big difference. Provided the whole thing didn't go nuclear first. Open season on Bears too.
    2
  8.  @ulfosterberg9116  60 & 64 Dems, 68 & 72 Repb, 76 Dem, 80, 84 & 88 Repb. That's just the White House. House and Senate yah that's a different story. But a lot of the Dems then would've liberal Republicans now if they have the same views.
    1
  9. IIRC the F-16 was originally designed with twin vertical stabilizers. When they switched to one the structure for the horizontal control surfaces were not changed much. Of course that could be internet or aviation magazine BS. Kind of like the reason the Corsair had a full wing was to shorten the landing gear for ground clearance on the prop. Nope. The gull wing resulted from it improved the aerodynamics of the airframe.
    1