The USAF’s F-110A/F-4C Phantom II was not seen as an interceptor, it was immediately trialled with all manner of A/S weaponry, and USAF F-4s performed numerous strike missions ovre Vietnam. The USN’s Phantom II was primarily used as an interceptor and later a tactical fighter for CAP and escort duties as carrier air wings already possessed A-6 and A-7 strike aircraft.

The F-12B and F-15 were NOT RELATED PROGRAMS! The F-15 was the FX air superiority fighter program, the F-12B was the AMI Advanced Manned Interceptor program. Two separate programs; the in-service”follow-on” to the F-12B was the F-106, NOT the F-15! The F-15 was to take the air combat role from the F-4.

The F-12B was perfectly suited for the role in which it was designed, but F-12B vs. MiG-25 is a whole different story for a different time and place.

SOC

There is a phrase in spanish that says, lo que sucede conviene, that roughly translated means what does happen is what is best, that applies to the YF-12

Here you have a Mach 3 plus aircraft armed with long range missiles against another Mach 3 aircraft armed with medium range missiles, both aircraft were developed as interceptors of Mach 3 bombers and the MiG-25 in part influenced by the YF-12 program.

If the MiG-25 succeed is first because the US thought it was an agile aircraft, for Boyd`s followers it was another reason to develop the F-15 and not the YF-12, it was too obvious that the YF-12 was not a match, an agile Mach 3 fighter as they thought the MiG-25 was, proved to be more than a match for an sluggish YF-12 and another factor was the F-4 was much more slower and uncapable of beating the agile Boyd`s type super fighter the MiG-25 was thought.;) besides the real fact the MiG-25 was reported to be an fighter easy to build and unlike the YF-12 cheap to build in large numbers

There’s the central flaw in your argument: the F-111B was NOT going to replace the F-4! The F-4 would have served as the primary tactical fighter for the USN, with the F-111B serving as the interceptor. Now, mix the two of them together, take out a good deal of the air-to-surface capability, and you get what? The F-14!

From a 1964 perspective the F-4 was the next USAF and USN fighter to see widespread frontline use. The F-111 was a tactical, low-level strike aircraft, never intended to serve as any sort of fighter until McNamara directed the Navy to use it as the basis for the Fleet Air Defence aircraft replacing the then-cancelled Missileer.

As far as the USAF goes, you are confusing tactical fighters such as the F-100 or F-4 with strategic interceptors such as the F-89, F-101B, or F-106. Boyd’s theories apply to the former, but not the latter; the F-12B would have been part of the latter.

And the MiG-25 was no dogfighter either, I’m starting to think that all of this is just some veiled attempt to “prove” that the MiG-25 was superior to the Blackbird…

The MiG-23 did make use of VG wings, perhaps in part due to analysis of American work on the F-111, but the Soviet answer to the F-111 was the Su-24.

They may well have been threats to those older Soviet aircraft, but the fact of the matter was that their operational employment would have meant they never encountered them.

The F-12B was an Air Defense Command interceptor designed solely to intercept incoming supersonic bombers. The supersonic bomber threat never materialized and due in part to McNamara’s preference of the cheaper F-106, the F-12B was cancelled. The F-12B was never going to be fielded in large numbers and sent all over the world hunting MiGs, it was a purpose-designed aircraft, in that fashion no different from, say, an AEW&C platform.

The F-111B was the USN’s Fleet Air Defense aircraft, designed to use the AWG-9/AIM-54 combination to do one thing and one thing only: protect the carrier from incoming missiles. Again, a purpose-built aircraft.

The USAF’s F-111 was a strike aircraft, not a fighter.

Where is the problem.

SOC

You are not using a 1964 perspective because in 1964 The F-4 did not have an internal gun and was basicly another interceptor like the F-111B however the F-111B did have a gun😉

you are using 1968 perspective when it was too clear the F-4 needed a gun, the YF-12 was too expensive and lacked agility so it was better suited for surveillance and the F-111B was not a fighter but a bomber.

OK.

I think the YF-111A’s first flight was a few months after that of the Ye-166, for the record.

Yeah, we started sending combat troops in more than just an advisory role in 1965. The F-12 and F-111 had already flown by then, so how exactly were MiG engagements in Vietnam having any bearing whatsoever on their design.

Oh wait, they didn’t, as neither aircraft was ever intended to get into a turning fight with anything. They were pure interceptors outside the scope of Boyd’s concepts as they dealt with mission types that he was not talking about.

It was a USAF low-level strike fighter, and a USN interceptor.

The F-111A et. al. was intended to penetrate Soviet airspace at high speed and LOW level. The F-111B wasn’t intended to speed around at Mach 2.5 all the time; the high-speed was a by-product of some of the USAF’s requirements. It would have mounted CAPs and conducted intercepts of inbound weapons like the AS-4. Where you are getting the idea that the F-111B was intended to be a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor in the vein of the F-12B is beyond me, but you are dead wrong. In fact, the concept for the naval interceptor was to provide a platform with long loiter capability (there goes your high-speed argument) and longer-range weapons than were available on the F-4.

Hell, USAF F-111’s didn’t even get a self-defense AIM-9 capability until the early 1980’s. Prior to that, it was a 100% pure strike aircraft, so explain to me just what Boyd’s ACM tactics and doctrine would have had to do with a strike aircraft that had no air to air capability anyway.

No, it doesn’t.

Which again has absolutely not a single thing to do with the Navy’s F-111B, as the USAF’s F-111A (etc) was not an aerial combat machine, but a tactical low-level strike aircraft.

And it also had not a thing to do with the F-12B, as that was not an aerial combat machine either, but a straight-line interceptor for strategic air defense.

No they wouldn’t. By that logic the interceptor which ended up filling the F-12B’s role, the F-106A, would have ended up as a fighter. It didn’t, it remained a bomber interceptor its entire career.

Get real, there is absolutely no way that either the F-12B or the F-111 were ever going to be used as dogfighters. There were other programs and other aircraft for those tasks, the F-111B and F-12B programs had absolutely and unequivocally nothing to do with them. The F-15 for example was spawned out of a requirement to counter the MiG-25, which was believed to be a maneuverable air superiority aircraft, not as part of the TFX program (the F-111). It was the result of the FX program.

You need to actually figure out what Boyd is talking about before you come back with more untruths and unsubstantiated statements.

And for the record, there is a book available on the F-111B that details the TFX program, the F-111B program, and the design and nature of the F-111B itself.

SOC

Let us imagine what the F-111 and YF-12 represented, first these aircraft were aircraft that relied on long range missiles, now i want to ask you a question can the AIM-54 and AIM-47 kill fighters? the answer is yes, they can and basicly these two aircraft and specially the F-111B would had to meddle with enemy fighters simply because the US navy fighters are the spear head of any US offensive or defensive military reponse.

Of course you are hiding a very important factor, the Navy did not want a fighter that in reality was a bomber that is the reason they designed the F-14.

in fact the F-111 has the F and not the B of bomber and it is not called B-111, the F-111B was Armed with six Hughes AIM-54A Phoenix air-to-air missiles, four underneath the wings and two inside the fuselage weapons bay. In addition, a 20-mm M61A1 cannon could be fitted

The idea of a VFAX multirole fighter was conceived during the early sixties, this aircraft was to replace the F-4 and A-7 in the air superiority and strike roles. The collapse of the F-111B program however left the Navy without a fleet defence missile platform, as a result the VFAX acquired the F-111B’s massive AWG-9 fire control system and payload of associated AIM-54 Phoenix SARH/ARH AAMs.

source http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-USN-95.html

Why the F-111B was to be armed with a gun unlike the F-4B?

In fact the reason the US navy cancelled the F-111B is because Grumman was ordered by the US Navy to study the F-111B combat capabilities against the new MiG-23 and MiG-25 and the conclusion was it would not had stand a chance against them, and it was inferior in dogfights, this helped Boyd`s theories

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf

the revelation of new Soviet fighters at the Moscow Air Show in July 1967. The existence of new generation Russian fighters, combined with the renewed appreciation for the importance of maneuverability and dogfighting gained from air combat experience over Vietnam, led the Navy to argue convincingly for the need for a specialized Navy fighter optimized for carrier-based fleet air defense. The Navy soon awarded a contract to Grumman for a study evaluating the F-111B’s capabilities in combatagainst the new Soviet fighters. In October, Grumman reported that the F-111B would not be able to cope with the new Russian fighters in a dogfight. More importantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based on company design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter that could meet the Navy’s fleet air defense needs. Shortly thereafter, two other historic Navy fighter developers LTV (Vought) and McDonnell-Douglas also submitted design proposals, as did a seasoned Air Force fighter developer, North American Rockwell. All these companies, with the exception of LTV,were also active participants in the Air Force F-X design studies. At around the same time, the Navy informed General Dynamics that the F-111B did not meet requirements and initiated a new study of alternatives.The Navy campaign to cancel the F-111B and develop its own fighter gainedmomentum at the end of 1967 when OSD appointed the Air Force as the executive agent for the development of a single new engine for a joint F-X/VFAX. By this time, both the Navy and Air Force were fully committed to developing their own fighters uncompromised by mission requirements from the other service, and the Navy now saw the Air Force as getting the upper hand in the OSD-supported F-X/VFAX program. The Navy campaign finally succeeded sixmonths later in July 1968 when Congress agreed to terminate the F-111B program. That same month, the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFXfighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet air defense mission. In addition to Grumman, North American, LTV, and McDonnell-Douglas, General Dynamics also submitted design proposals.As noted earlier, by late 1967 when Navy officials had ratcheted up their campaign to cancel the F-111B, the lighter, more maneuverable Blue Bird F-X hadgained widespread acceptance in the Air Force. At this time, however, Boyd, Sprey, and other members of the Fighter Mafia intensified their efforts to influence the F-X configuration toward an even smaller, less complicated, moremaneuverable LWF. By the spring of 1968, they had formulated a new “RedBird” F-X concept, which called for a lower-cost, even lighter fighter with lower However, Grumman proposed retention of a swing-wing design and many F-111B systems.

Then why bring up the Navy’s F-111B?

The F-111 was a perfectly fine attack aircraft. It was the Navy who screwed up by making it too heavy with the Phoenix system, basically making it very nearly carrier incapable in the process.

Weapon system testing showed it would have been very successful as an interceptor in the role chosen for it.

What missiles were Soviet bombers going to be firing at F-12s? It was never going to meet any fighters as it was not going to be a fighter itself. It was a pure interceptor, outside the scope of Boyd’s concepts.

SOC

Boyd was against aircraft like the F-111B and the YF-12, Why? simple Boyd was a voice in the desert claiming a light fighter like the F-16 was what the USAF needed, Mc Namara was the political and technological trend behind the YF-12 and the F-111, this was in part a by product of rising costs and improved electronics.

The whole idea behind the F-111 was a fast aircraft according to what the USAF tacticians thought (see the that the F-111 is a Mach 2.5 aircraft) the F-111B armed with AIM-54 would had been a real menace to the short range MiG-21s armed with short range AAMs AA-2 Atolls, the Russians knew it they designed a similar aircraft the MiG-25 and the Sukhoi T-4, the Mach 3 barrier was a concept that aircraft engineers thought was going to be the next barrier to break, enters the YF-12 and the F-107 Rapier, however the Firefox design concept in the 1960s was unachieveable why? well thirsty engines and rising costs were one reason and the other were SAMs and ICBMs.

Boyd`s ideas are not coincidence, are practical solutions to the uncapability of building cheap mach 3 fighters with excellent agility, a SAM kill fast aircraft even a SR-71 and the MiG-25 and MiG-31 can also do it.
If the americans never lost one is simply they never really put the SR-71 in such chance and they retired them when the MiG-31s and S-300 appeared on the scene.

however an F-16 can kill a MiG-25 with AIM-120, a fast aircraft is not a good dog fighter good and mediun range AAMs can kill an slugish MiG-25.

try to think what would had happened if the F-111 and YF-12 would had been the 1970s USAF fighters and the F-15 and F-16 would not had enter production

Versus

Outcome:if the MiG-23 would had had fought the F-111 over the bekka Valley or over the Sidra Gulf the MiG-23s would had ruled over the F-111s even armed with AIM-54s specially in dogfights reasons the Max overload in a F-111 is 6Gs, has practically no rear view vision and would had relied in ambush attacks limiting practically any success at medium or short range combat

versus

outcome over the gulf war: the YF-12 would had been outnumbered by the MiG-25s even otclassed in dogfights, reason well the YF-12 would had turned worst than any known fighter, limited numbers would had been available

martinez,
thanks for the comments. I think the drag will be lower for the F-16, however, I cannot prove it. The MiG-23 will definitely lose speed much quicker, so drag is higher for anything going beyond 1g flight. The example of the MiG-23 was not to make any pointless comparison, but to show the different design decisions taken on two very focussed aircraft: the MiG-23 as a very supersonic aircraft with remarkable top speed, and the F-16 with remarkable acceleration. I think the MiG-23 still is one of the fastest tactical aircraft when it comes to top speed (considering practically achievable top speeds, not the often quoted M2.5 of an F-15, which are more theoretical).

The different inlet system on the MiG is known to me. I tried to have a useful installed thrust over Mach model, which is not easy even with data available.

I think Boyd’s E-M focussed on restoring lost energy. And SEP is exactly that: the ability of an aircraft to restore its energy level. If one uses this for climbing or acceleration is not important: energy is energy, kinetic or potential.

The SEP at 1g unveils some information, even more important is sometimes to compare 3 or 5g SEP. In this regime one can compare the energy loss in a maneuver. Here difference between two different design approaches, for example MiG-23 and F-16, become even more apparent.

@michelf
Nice post.

Shorsch

The MiG-23 never was intended to be a super agile aircraft, first because despite the MiG-23 was continuously re-engine with more powerful engines from the early R-29 to the R-35, all the weight penalty produced by the VG wing and the limited vision from the cockpit are typical features of an interceptor

The MiG-23 was designed as a fighter but in 1964 terms, agile yes but not to the level intended in the MiG-29 or earlier MiG-21s, the aircraft was to be a jack of all trades, relatively agile, nevertheless a medium range interceptor.

The F-16 to the contrary was designed primarily as a dogfighter armed with AIM-9s and without any BVR missiles.

The MiG-23 had a wing designed as a compromised, it was a wing to give limited success in all speed ranges and high speed and long range missiles.

As a fighter the MiG-23 surpassed the concept embodied in the F-111 and F-4, it was a light version of a F-111 with the same solutions that had the F-4 and the MiG-21 lacked.

The MiG-23 in fact is not much different to the Panavia Tornado in concept.

A lot of nonsense to stay polite.
You have to learn something about propulsion at first.
At take-off and low speed a prop-fighter outperforms a first generation jet-fighter easily, when it is the other way around at height and speed.
When the propulsion-effiency drops of the first and it will rise by the second.
Thrust-weight ratio becomes interesting only, when you compare two fighters from the same generation and propulsion system.
Otherwise a MiG-21 did outperform a MiG-25 with ease.
Speed is not related to weight and installed thrust. It sounds strange at first, but physics is not linear in several cases. For simple minded the t-w-ratio give s a first clue, when comparing something in the same class.
Available t-d-ratio differs with height and speed. The best t-w-ratio will not safe a careless pilot from wrong power-management. Surplus energy does allow to last longer or regain it quicker, when staying too long in inst.!
The Vietnam example showed, that BVR was not allowed in limited conflicts.
The AAMs did achieve maturity in the 70s. Till the 80s high agile fighters could reduce hit-probality from AAMs, when from the 90s it is not enough any longer. In the meanwhile more pilots were killed by G-lock than hostile AAMs.
Avoiding Gs does give your own AAM an easier task to hit something.

Sens

Speed in an aircraft is related to thrust to weight ratio that is correct simple physics simply F=M x A however you have to consider aircraft have two factors more affecting speed one is drag the other is weight

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/default.htm
Also everything is not so straight jet aircraft also are affected by the inlet design and the jet engine efficiency in it self.

The beautiful Me-262 was rather simple than advanced compared to a MiG-25.

What i have said is correct it took almost 30 years to jet technology to create engines of more than 10000 kg of thrust, the early Jumo only could deliver 900 kg of thrust and consider that since the early Me-262 that weighted more than 6000 kg to the MiG-25 that weighted more than 36000kg aircraft gained weight as their engines gained power, only the F-15 started the trend where the engines gave enough thrust to surpass the unity.

Well, my speculations are based on a history of success in Stealth by the United States. With the F-117, B-2, F-22, and shortly the F-35 leading the way………So, how do you explain Russia with no such expertise. Is going to easily surpass the F-35? While, I maybe speculating……..you are wildly guessing!:p

Man the Russian are building a fifth generation aircraft, basicly in the same class of the F-22 and F-35 and have deployed a missile S-400 that can destroy stealth aircraft, saying the PAK FA is not a fifth generation when even the engine it will power it is the AL-41 it is simply pure speculation of your part unless you have seen and fought the PAK FA in your F-22 all what you say about the latest Sukhoi is basicly coming from a bias and ill informed speculative position.

only time will tell if the PAK FA is good enough or better than the F-22