Absolutely the F-4 was a sparkling example of a cross-service combat aircraft. It was designed as a naval aircraft and the USAF wasn’t really interested in it to begin with….they had the F-105 and were working on Mach 3 types at the type. It wasn’t until they were kind of forced to think about the F-4 (F-110 as they called it) and realized it had some real capability that it became an “Air Force plane.”

The inter-service rivalries between the USN and USAF are long and mostly ridiculous.

Had the foresight been there in the late 60s-early 70s to cooperate on on the major fighter programs rather than compete, imagine what could have been achieved:

-F-15N/F-14 as the primary “high” fighter for both branches. Either would have filled the role and the economics of the larger buy would have made it ultimately cheaper.

-F-18 as the primary “low” for all three flying branches. Again, the scale of the larger buy would be dramatic enough to realize cost savings.

Combine this with joint-common training and support structures for all of the branches and the possibilities in savings are boggling.

Ultimately, this is the goal of the JSF program today.

As stated above, the Rafale was designed from the start as a carrier-capable aircraft….it wasn’t re-rigged late in development or production.

One of the items, which I think is a true shame and oversight, was the omission of folding wings on the M. I understand the reason why (spar design was crtical to wing strength, thus it wasn’t feasible to design a seperate wing for 50-70 naval aircraft), but I think it would make a difference to carrier ops and the number of aircraft which could be embarked….especially on ships of the CDG or CVF size.

If the UK decides against the JSF then it’s best bets are off-the-shelf aircraft rather than a late, crash-course in producing a carrier Typhoon. Rafale M, Super Hornet, or C/D Hornets from U.S. stocks would be the most likely options.

In any of the above scenarios, the RN would still have a dramatic leap in naval aviation capability. But, the Brits would have no industrial stake in the alternatives and this is a critical issue to them right now….

I think we tried this once before in the 1960’s. Remember the Northrup Snark SM-62 (B-62) and the North American Navaho SM-64 (B-64)?

Apart from the post above about the true nature of these aircraft, the state of technology has obviously dramatically improved on the last 40-odd years.

The early premature exuberance for unmanned aircraft of the 1950s/1960s was certainly incorrect-they possessed neither the knowledge to make them effective enough to replace the manned aircraft AND they mistakenly believed that a need for manned platforms would soon be negated entirely by missiles or drones.

These conditions do not exist today. The state of modern technology allows these aircraft to be both controllable and effective. Also, at least yet, there is no wide spread call for all manned missions to replaced with unmanned ones. We do realize today better than today.

Hey, I am as traditional as the next guy and no fan of drones. But, I also understand reality when it is staring us in the face. UACVs are a distinct fact and much of the future of aerial combat will be placed with them.

And, if an unmanned platform allows us to have the real time response we need…..then I’m all for it.

I don’t think the idea now is to replace all-manned aircraft with unmanned types. Unlike the fad of the late-50’s/early 60’s, we have realized that drones and missiles are not the end all of aerial warfare.

But, technolocy has advanced to the point that some of the missions performed by manned types can be done by unmanned types…..reconnaissance is one of the primary ones.

The growing costs of advanced unmanned aircraft are natural….more capability and new airframes. Compare this with the cost of developing an entirely new manned airframe with the same new technology and the unmanned will still be cheaper. Compare the upgrade of an existing U-2 with a new-build RQ-4 and it seems to show no benefit. But, this isn’t the case.

I’m no big fan of unmanned aircraft, but they are a reality and do present a clear advantage in many situations. Shoot down a Global Hawk over China and they’ve got a few pieces of debris. A U-2 shot down over China has the situation of the pilot maybe showing up on Chinese t.v. as a spy and at the least being negotiated over (or the body) for release.

For my money, send the drone and I’ll rest a little easier should things hit the fan….

Actually, this has been discussed quite a bit and the Global Hawk is the most ideal replacement for the U-2 there is.

The newest model RQ-4 (B, I believe) has longer wings and longer range than the model currently flying, thus erasing some of the disparity with the U-2. Not to mention that reconnaissance/surveillance is one of the few areas where UAVs are actually exceeding manned vehicles in capability-no life support or crew accomodations thus reducing weight and increasing internal volume.

I hate to see the U-2 exit the scene as well, but the GlobalHawk can do it’s job without putting a pilot in jeopardy.

This whole episode smells of miscalculation and poor planning on the part of the Japanese defence agency.

You’ve just spent $130 million@ buying the F-2 and then you cut the order short. A radar problem seems like peanuts compared to finding a suitable replacement set and continuing the production run for domestic purposes. An upgraded F-2 would seem to be the ideal replacement for the F-4 in a multi-purpose role. After all, it’s what the USAF did.

But no…………….time to initiate a whole new program.

So, you want a new airplane for air defence but you’re spending money on an upgrade to your current F-15s for that very role. If you’re searching for a new air-defence aircraft, why not just can this program and spend the money on its replacement?

But, you want a degree of domestic involvement.

The F-22 is within their financial means, but not in the numbers to replace the F-4 and F-15….likely less than one hundred total airframes.

The F-35 can be had, but it’s a multi-role airplane years away from procurement for them with little chance of production opportunities.

Honestly, their best bets appear to be a new version F-15 (which they could produce) or continuing the F-2 with improvements.

I haven’t understood this whole situation since it began…

The A-5 was intended as nuclear, supersonic bomber launched from carrier decks…a role which became unfeasible shorlty after it entered service.

Ahead of its time? More, outside of its time.

In response the questtion about the undercarriage, they were known to have gear failures during carrier landings. The odd guide link (oleo?) extending from the well to the main gear bottom was a source of problems where it jammed or broke out of track on hard landings. I don’t know that much of trouble on conventional surface landings though….