If the USAF and USN had to choose one type, which would they choose?

I fully agree (as it’s self-evident and I’m not a complete buffoon all of the time) that there is a weight gain (penalty) to carrier ops; what with the beefier undercarriage, smaller stock of drop tanks and need for a stronger airframe (especially the keel) but I would not agree with all of those comparisons

What about another way? If the USAF could only have one fastjet and the USN only one fastjet. What choice then?

F4 or A4 or F8?
F15 or F16?
F14 or F18?

certainly:

F-4 and F-14. the F-14 variant, bombcat, was no slouch in air to ground.
between the F-15 and 16, that is harder, but I’m leaning towards the 15.

Realize the USAF was seriously looking at YF-12A long before using F-111 as anything but a bomber, I think you would compare the F-111/AIM-54 (Phoenix) combination to F-12A/AIM-47 (Super Falcon). It’s pretty obvious that MiG-31 was more along the F-12A concept than trying to mimic F-111.

same difference.
Air force planes tend to be better than their usn counterparts

f-35A > f-35C
F-16 > F-18
F-101 > F-8
etc

I fully agree (as it’s self-evident and I’m not a complete buffoon all of the time) that there is a weight gain (penalty) to carrier ops; what with the beefier undercarriage, smaller stock of drop tanks and need for a stronger airframe (especially the keel) but I would not agree with all of those comparisons

F18 has two engines (again perhaps more of a necessity for carrier ops than landbased), had decent air to ground much earlier and had BVR from the get go. (Admittedly we all know that USAF F16s didn’t have this for internal and political rather than technical reasons). Would I point blank say that F16 is better than F18? No. Although I’d happily see it as a better dogfighter.

Similarly the F14 had a massive advantage in BVR (caveat: the infamous simultaneous six missile interception has now had doubt cast upon it and Phoenix was by all accounts a pig for maintenance). So although the mighty F15 was my favourite plane as a kid and much easier on the eye and has a superior dogfighting record (and so a convincing claim to be the better air superiority fighter) was it out and out better than the F14? Maybe that was one that you deliberately omitted from your list?

Also F4 > anything USAF had in service and so bought in huge numbers?

What about another way? If the USAF could only have one fastjet and the USN only one fastjet. What choice then?

F4 or A4 or F8?
F15 or F16?
F14 or F18?

OCA and DCA roles.

Offensive Counter Air and Defensive Counter Air?

Navy and Air Force have two completely different views of mission priorities. And arguing past events is meaningless. Let’s reason through future airplane requirements against a near-peer…

For the Navy the primary mission, by a wide margin, is to protect the carrier. Near term threats against a carrier are anti shipping missiles carried by long range maritime patrol aircraft, surface ships and submarines. (We won’t discuss ballistic missiles, submarine-launched torpedoes and mines which are threats addressed by SAMs and helicopters). You don’t need an uber high performance fleet defense airplane to counter anti shipping missiles. You do need an excellent sensor suite and lots of superior missiles capable of operating in all weather against swarms of supersonic and sea skimming missile targets. Lots of missiles and persistence to stay on station for extended periods while the threat persists (i.e. lots of fuel) means a large airplane. The Navy is about ships and ships have to be protected even if the fleet has to run away and suffer a mission kill to protect its ships.

Navy’s secondary mission for airplanes is anti-surface warfare. This means carrying anti-shipping weapons like AGM-154 and LRAASM. Again, an airplane with uber high performance is not needed for that role. But survivability (stealth and jamming) to launch weapons from within the adversary’s SAM defense radius and the ability to provide offensive jamming to support weapons during terminal phase is needed.

Navy’s tertiary mission is strike against land targets. This requires long combat radius since today’s near peer MPA/AShM and ballistic missile threats force the CSG to stay 1000+ NM from the adversary’s coastline. A combat radius in excess of 1500 NM is needed. That is a big airplane with lots of fuel. And it needs to have a MTOW of <85K lbs to use current catapults and arresting gear. The strike group needs survivability against SAMs and a few DCA, provided by stealth and jamming. Also, an excellent sensor suite to find targets employing sophisticated camouflage and concealment and to discriminate targets from decoys. And it needs superior weapons to enable multiple kills in a single pass.

Air Force’s priorities are markedly different.

Air Force has two co-equal priorities, air dominance and force projection.

Air dominance covers OCA and DCA roles. DCA benefits from fast reaction times from alert posture, excellent sensors to target attackers, and superior weapons to neutralize an attack. High maneuverability can be a benefit, but not at the expense of sensors, weapons and survivability (stealth and SPJ). You would like your DCA to have sufficient range to deal with attackers before they can launch missiles against friendly ground targets. This means a combat radius of 500 NM. Size could be similar to today’s Gen 4 jets.

OCA requires long combat radius since basing needs to be outside the range of near-peer ballistic missiles. Like the Navy airplane, a combat radius in excess of 1500 NM is needed, resulting in a big airplane, with lots of fuel (maybe MTOW of 100K lbs). Like the DCA airplane it needs excellent sensors, lots of superior weapons and survivability provided by stealth and jamming. High maneuverability may be desirable to deal with “leakers” who are trying to engage friendly force projection airplanes.

Force projection means penetrating the adversary’s IADS and killing the assigned ground targets. Since these airplanes are also based far from the adversary’s border, a combat radius in excess of 1500 NM is needed. Like the OCA airplane, this requires a big jet with lots of fuel (MTOW of 100K lbs like an FB-111), excellent sensors to find targets using CCD techniques and survivability using stealth and jamming. The force projection jets don’t need uber maneuverability, but should have a couple AAMs in the weapons loadout to deal with any adversary DCA missed by friendly OCA.

In summary, while the airframe differences are obvious (MTOW<85K lbs vs 100K lbs, carrier launch and recovery), the need for long combat radius/endurance, excellent sensors, superior weapons in large quantities, and survivability using stealth + jamming are common to both services. The question is how to accomplish this with limited money and a bloated government acquisition bureaucracy standing in the way with rice bowls in their hands?

It’s really quite simple. You take the front of an F-16 and the back of an F/A-18 and slap a lift fan in the middle to keep the Marines happy. You borrow the wings and cockpit from the F-117 to satisfy the gee-whiz stealth brigade and keep costs down by removing one of the wheels. Everybody wins.

A major redesign that would have resulted in a badly compromised aircraft…

Carrier capability isn’t something you can just add on to an existing design.

same difference.
Air force planes tend to be better than their usn counterparts

f-35A > f-35C
F-16 > F-18
F-101 > F-8
etc

F-16 is better bang for buck over f-18, f-14 was a maintenance hog compared to F-15,
f-111 was as much of a fighter as f-35

Try to confine your trolling to just a few threads ok?

Find me some accounts of F-111 pilots beating up the fighters of their day in dogfights…

no.

they were planning to make all the land based aircraft carrier capable

https://tacairnet.com/2015/04/15/f-15n-sea-eagle/

A major redesign that would have resulted in a badly compromised aircraft…

Carrier capability isn’t something you can just add on to an existing design.

F-16 is better bang for buck over f-18, f-14 was a maintenance hog compared to F-15,
f-111 was as much of a fighter as f-35

I thought F-111B was supposed to be a Bomber and missile interceptor not a fighter?

If they had to pick one type it would have to be the navy type in every case. Otherwise no carrier capability.

EOT

no.

they were planning to make all the land based aircraft carrier capable

https://tacairnet.com/2015/04/15/f-15n-sea-eagle/

F-16 is better bang for buck over f-18, f-14 was a maintenance hog compared to F-15,
f-111 was as much of a fighter as f-35

USAF and USN rivalry are famous or infamous in that they demand their own planes. sometimes the performance overlaps. if the US government forced both to adopt one type, which would’ve been best choice now that we know their capabilities?

1. F-16 or F-18
background: YF-17 was offered to the USAF and lost to the YF-16. Also an F-16 Naval version was offered (build?) for the US Navy

2. F-14 or F-15
background: McDonalds blueprint of the F-15N emerged , carrying 4 phoenix missiles and a double wheel landing gear.

3. F-111 or F-14
background: originally, the F-111 navalized fighter version was offered to the Navy

If they had to pick one type it would have to be the navy type in every case. Otherwise no carrier capability.

EOT