“The fact that the Navy later launched a light-weight fighter program which became the F-18 speaks for itself.”

Yes, it says 2 things:
1. Until the F-14 came along, the F-4 did both battlefield air superiority and fleet defense (on the larger carriers), and only enough F-14s were bought to fill the requirement for one… fleet defense. This left the remaining F-4s in need of replacement, so they needed something to finish the job of replacing the F-4. Yes, the F-14 was too expensive to replace all of the F-4s, but it was never intended to do that (see below).

2. They needed something to replace the A-7, and thought it would be a good idea to use the same aircraft for both jobs, as this would cost less than developing two different new aircraft and building fewer of each type… which would mean fewer aircraft in total than they got by combining the two requirements.

What it does not say, is anything about the performance of the F-14.

The “lightweight fighter” requirement was based upon CAS/Tactical Strike (A-7) and Battlefield Air Superiority (F-4) (protecting CAS aircraft from enemy aircraft), while the F-14 requirement was all about fleet defense. Two completely different mission specs, and the F/A-18A/C/D had nothing to do with fleet defense. The “Hornet” only got into the F-14’s mission field when F/A-18E began to replace the F-14 in the fleet defense mission.

Quite a number of years ago, I saw a “skin heating” drawing for the SR-71.

At Mach 3+ (no exact #), the coolest part of the skin was the inner top of the vertical stabilizers… at ~575° F.

IIRC, the canopies were actually cooler, but they were in the shock cone of the nose, and experienced little friction heating.

That tells you a bit about what would be the limiting factor on its speed.

The specific items most cited by the USAF in selecting the F-22 over the F-23 were maneuverability and maintainability.

It does little good to carry more weapons further and faster with slightly better stealth characteristics if a major requirement is ACM against other very maneuverable aircraft, and all you can do is a straight line… or if the aircraft either has to abort due to a failure or is unavailable because the ground crew couldn’t get it ready in time.

22 flights total, some after dark.

70+ wounded evacuated.

3 days.

These two men are the forefront of modern CSAR operations, and set the standard for all who followed.

Here is a description of the XB-70 crash, written with help from the surviving pilot:

“Al White and Carl Cross heard the impact, but felt nothing. Flying in the T-38 off the left wingtip, Joe Cotton called out “207 (identifying AV/2) you’ve been hit! You’ve been hit!” But in those first moments, neither White nor Cross heard the call. Even as Cotton continued “…okay, you’re doing fine, he got the verticals, but you’re still doing fine,” White turned to Cross and asked, “I wonder who got hit?”

16 seconds after the impact, the XB-70 started a slight roll. Al White corrected the roll — and instantly recognized the Valkyrie’s peril as she began a snap roll to the right. Ramming the number six engine’s throttle to maximum afterburner, he tried to save AV/2 — but after 2 slow rolls, the plane broke into a sickening spin, taking any hopes of recovery with it.

White pushed his seat back into the eject position, but caught his arm in the ejection pod’s clamshell doors as they closed. Unable to communicate with the struggling Carl Cross, and unable to eject until getting his arm clear, White could only watch his co-pilot fail to get into his pod for ejection. Finally, with the realization that he needed to get out now, Al White worked his arm clear and ejected just moments before AV/2 slammed into the ground a few miles north of Barstow, California.

Although the drogue chutes deployed from White’s pod, he realized the airbag underneath the pod — designed to absorb much of the impact — had failed to inflate. Striking the ground, White took a 44G impact — lessened to 33Gs as his chair broke free of its mountings. Amazingly, although banged, battered, and bruised, he suffered no broken bones. Although White returned to flight status just three months later, he never flew the XB-70 again.

Carl Cross was not so lucky. Unable to escape the Valkyrie, and still strapped into his seat, he was killed instantly when the B-70 struck the ground in an upright and level configuration.”

Sorry, but since they are looking for a “fighter-first” aircraft, the JSF is not in the mix… since the most advanced F-15, F/A-18, & Typhoon variants are still better as fighters than the F-35… despite its stealth characteristics.

Waiting the 5-10 years (or more) for the US to change its position on exporting the F-22 would be unreasonable and irresponsible… therefore the Japanese must choose one of those gen 4.5 fighters… or bankrupt the country by developing their own gen 5 stealthy fighter.

And no, there is no chance whatsoever of buying a Russian aircraft… for certain board members. Japan expects to be shooting them down, not flying them.

Tie it down with cables fastened to anchor bolts sunk into the rock, and mount the new navigation beacon on the bow or atop the deckhouse.
😀

Exdigger…
perhaps they just want to keep the interior in the shape it is in, rather than have to re-restore it after each “high-traffic” season?

I refer to the previous mentions of fod (not flight-critical on a static display, but when they spill liquids on the fabric/leather, the stains can be nearly impossible to remove [Hawaiian Punch has a really nasty red dye], and the rust caused when it goes into cracks), tears from metal studs on the punker teen’s jacket, etc.

Then there are those who feel it is their right to remove a part for a keepsake… after all, they paid admission, shouldn’t they get to keep something?

Many times, up to half the upkeep cost of an indoor “hands-on/climb-in” exhibit is directly due to damages from the paying public.