I’m not sure I see the point you are aiming at there?. Are you saying that because they were stupid in 1900 they should be consistently stupid now and draw funds from legitimate programmes to go towards nebulous ones?.

“Legitimate programs” smacks of the revolt of the Admirals, when the Air Force wanted all the money for A bombers. The Air Force thot their program was more legitimate than the aircraft carrier the Navy wanted to build.

So why do you think your other “legitimate programs” are more important than having our Naval Aviators flying the absolute best next generation fighter?

Again I go back to your argument saying “what threat” and that is exactly the point, just because you cannot see the threat right now, I maintain we need to be prepared for ALL threats.

A question here————do you have some skin in the game for your “legitimate programs” or are they just your opinion?

To meet what threat in what timeframe Logical?. At what expense….is it worth taking funds from the Virginia class TLAM augment?. Is it worth cutting back the frigate programme?. Maybe its more important than the LSD build programme?. Maybe the USN can do with a dozen fewer DDG’s?.

Then you have the question of the carrier deck. Ford class designed for lean-manning…at least the USN’s concept of such….now you want to introduce multiple aircraft types with varying logistics, sparing and training overheads?.

All on the basis that you dont think swingrole works….ironically after it being USN Hornets that were one of the spearhead types for the concept!.

You say “to meet what threat? That is my point. You just failed in your argument not to develop a pure air superiority for the Navy, because you dont know what the threat might be. As the Boy Scouts say always be prepared. The Navy like all the military needs to stay one step ahead of any possible enemy.

Simplest answer is that there’s no requirement for such a type now.

There’s no AVMF Backfire Regiments and no SIOP for them to be needed. Threats to a battlegroup now are mainly subsurface or based around heavily missile-laden strikefighters which, being heavily missile laden, aren’t great air-air performers. The need for more than F-35 type fleet air defence is not really there.

That may or may not be true at this time. However we need to be prepared for future situations so we are not caught with our pants down like we were at the beginning of WWII.

Speak softly but carry a big stick!!!!!

You have an inaccurate view of history.

There were very few “A” model jets in the ’50s and ’60s which were successful.

P-80A was rapidly superseded by F-80C to correct deficiencies,
Same with F-84
And F-86
And F-89
And F-94
And F-100
And F-102
And F-104
And F-105

F-106A was the exception which didn’t require upgrades to make the jet militarily useful. But F-106 was a product-improved F-102 and Convair used their extensive knowledge of F-102 to get it right.

F-4A was only a footnote compared to the number of Bs, Cs, Ds, Es, Js which were built.
F-111A was outnumbered by Ds, Es, and Fs.

In the late ’60s, there was a shift in how the USG bought jets. Instead of rolling to a new type designator suffix, they retrofitted engineering changes. It was the business case which made sense.
F-14A, F-15A, F-16A and F-18A all had a large number of retrofits required to fix deficiencies, as does F-22. And F-35 will be no different.

The bottom line is jets aren’t perfect when they first roll out of the factory. Changes have to be made to correct deficiencies. That has been the history of aviation since jet airplanes started flying. To believe perfection can be achieved from the 1st production example, one must ignore history.

Actually the b, c, d, Js and so on was a result of trying to make the planes a do all all things to all people. And look at what it did to them. During Nam when they made the A5 Vigilante a photo recon aircraft. It went in after a bombing raid to access the damage. It was accompanied usually by Phantoms. Both the large A5 and the F4 had J79 engines. The A5 flew clean, and the F4s had bomb and rocket racks and anything else that would make it a more “versatile” aircraft dirtying up the wing.. After the photo run the A5 hits the throttles, and the F4 pilots are left behind yelling slow down. I still submit the do all end all air craft that was to be a figher becomes a pig bomber. Fighter should remain fighters, and bombers and attack aircraft can have their bomb racks.

In the case of the SR-71 v Mig 25 / 31, a Mig 25 successfully got an intercept well within the AA-6’s no escape zone on an SR-71 over the Baltic during the 1980s and was seen to do so by a NATO long range radar located in West Berlin. B-70 was canned because there were cheaper ways and more efficeve ways of doing its mission (ICBM, SLBM, B-52 at low level, Etc.)

Pretty hard to recall an ICBM once fired.

I was pointing out that the third prototype flew at Mach 3+ for sustained periods successfully, so they did overcome the technology hurdle but it was rejected as a reliable delivery method, due to changes in air defence and ballistic missile technology.

Make that GUESSES in missile technology. I submit that if the slow lumbering B-52 is still considered a viable war plane, why wouldnt one that could fly more that half again higher, and 4 times as fast. It could arrive on near scene at mach 3 deploy cruise missiles and fly home.

Remember too that at the 80,000 feet or so that the B-70 could fly, missiles probably couldnt stay with it in a turn. The B-70 had the advantage of compression lift, and a huge wing area. I suggest if a missile got close all the B_70 pilot would have to do is bank into a tight turn that the missile with its small fins couldnt match.

Further later on the B-70 could mount a fast attack, stand off and drop it cruise missiles, and return to base.