Adrian_44RE: Faked apollo Mission to Moon?
The Top 15 Reasons Why No Man Has Ever Set Foot on the Moon
This was at the height of the Cold War, do you think China or the Soviet Union would have let America get away with a lie like that?? Be logical! The USSR and USA hated each other and made no bones about it. The fear about nuclear war was real and both country’s populations lived under that burden of fear. The conflicts over Berlin or Cuba made people go out and buy food and supplies just in case the nuclear war started and they survived.
If there were something to the US going to the moon the Communist countries would have stated so.
The USSR was not far behind the USA and knew the ability to go to the moon.
“I heard” the USSR had a lunar module on the launch pad two weeks before the USA but, a launch pad accident kill the crew members. I have never been able to verify this.
shall i ask where is the finish line in Space Race??
The number one prize was the moon. After NASA sent twelve men to the moon, the American people tired of it. The Soviet Union scrapped its plans to go the moon and consentrated on science in earth orbit.
Look at all the attempts the US government has made to keep any secret. Now take a look at the results, Watergate breakins, spying on Americans causing political problems, Iran-Contra, etc.
That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!)
That is not hard to do. When on vacation I went to Hawaii, at the Polynesian Cultural Center….. I watched some dancers do the HULA. I was just snapping photos left and right. I went through a roll of thirty-six in about two minutes. When I got home and had the film developed, I discovered the bulk of three rolls were take in less than than ten minutes. I endured some harsh words from my wife!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Pacific Subs a threat requiring additional training
“Anti-submarine warfare is a Navy core competency which needed a reinvigorated focus. We have recognized that we must take positive action and reorganize to meet this challenge … and (it is) why I have made ASW as my No. 1 war-fighting priority.”
No schitt!!! Who was the intellectual who discovered this, after the S-3 Viking has been retired.
Diesel subs are not really a threat to the carrier in deep water. It is amphibs who really have to deal with them. It could be a real disaster if a LHD placed its troops on the beach and before it can unload all their gear it gets sunk.
In times of international troubles the CVBG stays well out to sea and darts around at 25+ kts and they avoid choke points. If a choke point needs to be passed, US subs will check it out first.
The quietness of diesel subs is lost above four knots! When comparing the quietness of subs, the noise level is measured on the diesels at four knots while it is at eight knots for nuclear subs.
ASW skills are perishable on any platform. Like carrier landings one must stay current and proficient
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Faked apollo Mission to Moon?
I think on space race USSR was the winner without doubt!
The USSR started the race but did ‘NOT’ finish it! It never sent a man to the moon, the real goal in the race. Just an accident or two more than the USA, delayed the USSR’s program.
Who it was to send the first sattelite?
The USSR and it sent shock waves through the USA.
Nitpick mode on..
Signals coming from the Moon would not be a definite proof of human presence on Lunar surface
A technical point, not nipicking. There were enough satellites in orbit back then if the signals had originated in the USA to the lunar capsul and relayed back to earth, they would have been detected.
Let us not leave out the “quality” work of the KGB! There are so many ways to prove the USA did not pull a hoax.
If the lunar landing”S” were hoaxs, why did the USSR offer aid/assistance when Apollo 13, had its problems?
I also do believe the American interest in India’s Lunar mission is to sideline the Chinese mission as lies and propaganda
It is not discounted any more than the European or Japanese sapce programs. The world media does not make it an issue because it is not something that has not been done. Only those interested in space technology paid attention when Russia sent up the GLONASS satellite or the new European GPS systems.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Faked apollo Mission to Moon?
Hi guys
Just asking because like to know do we have the technology to send humen to moon and keep him alive ?
and I seen on a program that apollo mission in 1969 was fake!!
Let us not insult the Soviet Union, let alone America! National pride was on the line. America and the Soviet Union were in a race to get to the moon, the winner would be looked upon by the world as being a better / more productive form of government.
I put this in the same category of the US Navy causing the sinking of the Kursk! Any collision would cause damage to a surviving sub, water leaking in, pumps going would produce noise any decent ASW unit could detect.
If the lunar landing was a fake then, the Soviet Union would have sent a man to the moon then, showed the world the evidence that America lied!
From the technical side it only took about $1,000 back then to purchase the direction finding equipment that could also characterize the signal and its doppler shift to tell where the signals were comming from..
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Interception of the cruise missile
that may be the case before when soviet industries were widely disperesed in former republics. now with russia it is very different matter. u will be spending rest of life in siberia if anything is slightly out of the way of those who matter.
Stop and think about it, do you really feel the obsession with being ahead of the West was less during the Cold War? Be real, the Soviet Union spent money to stay at least even with the West and ahead whenever it could. Suspicion was very high in the Soviet Union.
assuming that Iran can hit ALL Cruise Missiles throwed by US… what is the net result … is EXPENDING ALL THE STOCKS OF SAM for Iran
This is where the decoys like “Poobah’s Party” at the start of the PGW#1 was so effective. It not only expended the missiles in stock, it also made the AD a target to the SEAD efforts. This is why you need an effective interceptor force to at least spot the decoys for the AD. If it is at night, the situation is far more complicated.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Could the Dutch defend their Caribbean Islands?
It would greatly depend on how the take-over is done. If it is through the ballot box that is one thing, if it through an armed take-over its another.
In the case of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, the people on the islands were British decent. Argentina was two hundred miles away is another issue that would be a lot different. How the Organization of American States (OAS) feels is another aspect that has to be considered. The fact that Argentina invaded the islands and that none or very few citizens wanted to be part of Argentina made a big impact to the OAS. In this case, the will of the people will be very important.
If you remember the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, then you remember America’s aid to Britain was limited to satellite surveilence and the usage of the Accention Islands.
No carrier battle group, no tankers, or anything else from America. The French AF provided Mirage jets in a two week “Red Flag” type of exercise to train the Harrier pilots on the best tactics in ACM. The Harrier pilots caught up with the fleet at Accention Island.
IMO, the Dutch military could not do it the way the Royal Navy did. No air support, a fleet that is not designed for power projection means the Netherlands would have to depend on the UN.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Av Week unveils Blackstar
This could explain to sonic booms that Los Angeles Basin was recieving every Thursday around 11:00AM in the 1990’s! The seimologist knew by the way the shockwave was causing the ground to shake and that the shock was created ‘elsewhere’ and the ground was recieving the energy. The shockwave traveled from south to north and after several incidents at about the same time indicates the events are man made.
I am not surprised it was Av Leak which first revealed in October 1981 that the USAF was working on a stealth aircraft. Later they tracked the Soviet efforts to design weapons for a ballistic missile defense system. Seeing the US armed forces had no coherent program released the story which caused a storm in congress. President Regan used this to start his strategic defense initiative -“Star Wars.”
AW&ST is a reputable publication, and i really would like to believe this one, but i seriously doubt it!
I dunno. I want to know why they really published the article…
Well look at the stealth fighter, even if it had not been delayed and messed with by congress, it still would have been very expensive. This technology is even more restricted in its applications of than super expensive products, like this. Any American SST is going to have to be profitable for the airlines. I remember the fight by the envirementalist when Boeing was in the early stages to make an SST that would compete with the Concord and Tu-144. These two aircraft were only in service because the national governments ‘sponsored’ the operations of them. Boeing quickly saw the social problems building and decided to get out of the SST business.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Interception of the cruise missile
Tomcats are surely not on constant alert, they can bring a dozen in the air but not in five minutes.
Actually, a carrier can launch one aircraft every fifthteen seconds, one aircraft per minute per catapult.
I’d love to know how they think they can neutralize a developmental SAM system that has never been exported.
Those involved in the field of ECM and ECCM know a lot about the weapon system before it is fully operational. Because you and I don’t know until some mass media organization announces it does not mean those whos buisness it is to know, have no idea.
NOTE -in October of 1981 AW&ST printed an article that the USAF was working on a stealth aircraft! Tom Clancy’s book, “Red Storm Rising” the USAF has a stealth aircraft (from Lockeed) called the F-19 Frisbee!! Now Clancy started working on the book back in 1984. The USAF did not release any information about the F-117 until 1988. We know the KGB delievered the specs, RCS, etc. for the F-117 before it became operational but, the Soviet AF commanders did not believe the information.
Knowing what the signal is, that is transmitted, its characteristics AND, being able to duplicate it yourself are two different things. The theory of how it works is not difficult to understand.
Once knowing the signal characteristics a country can start the design a counter to it. India and Russia are already working on a counter to the AN/APG-77 radar of the F-22. All the other countries working on AESA radars are also working on counter-measures to this type of radar. So far there is no known technque for detecting the radar signal from a radar that is as elaborate as the AN/APG-77 in the LPI mode.
Yes Israel has an effective intelligence system concerning Russia. Few people who are involved in air combat doubt the Israeli AF’s ability to back up their word.
The US claims the B-2, F-117A, F-22A, JSF fleet etc can penetrate heavily defended airspace
Various other folks claim to have developed various countermeasures to these systems. We won’t really know who is right
Actually we will have a pretty good idea by what are the desirable features for new weapon systems. Then study to see which features are dropped because of monetary pressures because they are to expensive. If countries continue to place stealth high in priority then stealth offers what it is supposed to. If some other feature replaces stealth then the counter stealth people were correct. So far with the aviation world still desiring stealth, I would tend to say counter-stealth is not as close as its advertisers would have us believe.
The USA is including stealth in all its new weapon systems (not just aircraft), Russia is working very hard to include stealth in its fifth generation aircraft and, the new European fighters have as much stealth as the project could afford to include.
Looking at it from this perspective, it looks like the counter-stealth people still have a lot of work ahead of them. From their perspective, the fact that stealth is improving and becomming more effective against a wider range of RF frequencies also is bad news.
Stealth will be a great factor for a long while. Look at all the work going into making more and more quiet submarines….. the first stealth weapon systems.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Interception of the cruise missile
Starting in early 2004 the IDF/AF offerred a course in how to neutralize the S-300 and S-400 missile systems. Turkey was the first country to take the course. The Israelis AF has always been inovative and sucessful in aerial combat operations.
I have never heard of the cost of the course.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Interception of the cruise missile
That is clearly unachievable (no matter if you take MiG or F-14)
This is exactly what the F-14/Phoenix Missile combination was designed to deal with. While it would take around 20 Tomcats to counter this attack.
The aegis systems of a CVBG would not be saturated by 100 cruise missiles. Especially, todays CVBG’s with both aegis destroyers and cruisers. The aegis destroyers can carry up to 90 missiles while the aegis cruisers can carry up to 122 missiles.
Wouldn’t pass water over Tom Clancys work… he is a joke.
That is your personal opinion of which you are entittled to but, the US Navy would disagree with you. In the book, “Red Storm Rising,” the first attack by the SNA, the Navy learned it had over looked something, the need for one aegis ship to direct the fleet defense or, co-operative engagement ability. The CVBG had enough SAMs but not using them effectively caused the fleet to run out of SAMs. So many people reading this, saw the need for co-operative engagement meant there was virtually no opposition for money going to develope this capability.
There is a reason the US Navy works so much with Clancy, even having him as a speaker at professional symposiums.
If you mean “they went in first” by lead the attack then what is all that stuff about Apaches being used for precision strikes against all the large long wave radars that could be used to track stealth aircraft before anything else went in?
The F-117’s and many cruise missiles had already gotten pass the Soviet “Tall King” air search radars along the border of Iraq. US Army Appache helos were used to kill an important radar site that allowed the attack package to pass through a huge gap.
It wasn’t until the important targets started blowing up did the secondary radars, SAM sites and, mobile radar sites go on-line. Their headquarters now blown up, these individual sites had to act on their own. These are the radars that absorbed the bulk of Poobah’s Party.
Every individual S-300 SAM site (useally 4-6 launchers + command post) have more firepower and much better radars battle damage resistance than AIEGIS crusier.
The aegis ships and the SAM battery are both out of combat once the radar is seriously damaged.
Several aegis ships carry a lot more firepower than several landbased SAM batteries, a lot more missiles than any land based site.
last time when bombers encountered modern SAM’s defence was probably Israel 1973 war. It wasnt easy for Israel AF back then….
Over the Balkans a B-1 Lancer was locked up by a SAM-6 site and it was able to jam the SAM’s radar. The B-2 Spirit used a new piece of equipment in which the B-2 can drop sixteen GBU-24’s, laser guided bombs having them all in the air at one time, each bomb targeting a different target. It is impressive video on what it looks like on the ground.
Oh, by the way, the B-2 was never locked-on nor did the air defense show any sign of detecting the B-2.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Interception of the cruise missile
Talk of overwhelming the defences with thousands of UAVs or thousands of cruise missiles is really interesting, but has it actually ever been done?)..
If you want look up “Poobah’s Party.” Larry “Poobah” Henry was a USAF tactician and acceled at SAM surpression and he was one of the planners of the air campaign for PGW#1. So as part of the opening phase, decoy missiles like the Ryan Firebee, about one hundred lead the attack.
The attack started with the F-117’s taking out the air defense headquarters and communication centers, cruise missiles took out other important targets. Now, with no headquarters each air defense unit had to act on their own. All the Iraqi air defense radars turned on and when they burnt through the jamming they saw “Poobah’s Party” along with F-4 Wild Weasel aircraft. So, in targeting all these radar blips all the ground based radars and SAM site took almost 100 HARM “anti-radiation” missiles. The Iraqi AD never recovered from the fear or the loss of so many radar sites. The Iraqi AD did learn that whenever a Wild Weasel aircraft launched a a HARM Missile they would call out the name of an American automobile. The IAD would then turn off their radars upon hearing the call of an American automobile name. Sometimes the Wild Weasels would call out a auto name, not fire a HARM and, the Iraqis would turn off their radars. So it became a cat an mouse game for the rest of the war.
In Tom Clancy’s book, “Red Sorm Rising” the first engagement between a US CVBG and the SNA, the SNA used this tactic to decoy the interceptor away from the main attack and also use up the ship SAMs.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Interception of the cruise missile
The real difficulty in attacking a CVBG is that you (the attacker) need precise information as to where the ships of the battle group are. The battle group on the other hand can create havoc over hundreds of miles and foil the attack. You can’t kill what you can’t find.
An AWACS can be anywhere from directly over the the carrier to a couple hundred miles away in any direction. All the carrier defenses need do is to prevent the attackers the critical data of exact ship location. There need not be any specific relationship between where the jamming aircraft is in relationship to the placement of the AWACS or ships in the CVBG.
The AWACS will use its data link to keep the battle group informed as to where the attackers are. So in trying to find the ships and having the patrol aircraft’s radars jammed (by an EA-6 Prowler, etc.), the patrol aircraft has to be careful in that it could get to close to an escort and first knowledge of a mistake is when a naval SAM locks on to the patrol aircraft in the terminal flight of the SAM.
While many missiles boast of ranges in access of one hundred miles, few can travel more than fifty miles at sea level. So, the targeted ships will be able to detect the missiles before they drop down to sea level making them easier to kill.
There is a reason the USSR changed its mind on the value of a carrier before the end of the Cold War. It is because the carrier can do the task for which it was designed to do, especially in a “hot war.”
How could a very low flying interceptor see through the horizon? The Mig-31 has a much wider FOV with its radar than an F-14… especially regarding heights.
Detection is not just based upon altitude, the ability to pick a target of of “sea clutter” is extremely important. Something the USSR did not pay much attention to until the radar designs of the MiG.-29 and Su-27!
(If you want to see the liability in not being able to look down into sea clutter, study the aircombat between the US Navy’s F-14A’s and Libyan MiG.-23’s in 01/04/89. Once the F-14A’s dropped down to 3,000 feet the MiG.-23’s could no longer get a radar lock-on them.)
In the vertical plane the MiG.-31’s radar has a much greater FOV. The F-14’s radar is more jam resistant and has greater sensativity. In essence the MiG.-31 uses brute power in an effort to accomplish what the Tomcat does with sophistication of the radar system.
I would rate it rather better than the current CVBGs interceptor in the role of cruise missile interception.
As long as the cruise missiles fly a couple thousand feet or higher the MiG.-31 can accomplish its task but, down in the weeds shows its limitations. I prefer the CVBG’s defense sinse the attacker is more limited in how it will be attacked. The CVBG is also a moving target making accurate fixing of the target’s position more difficult. A fixed target does not have to be detected, its position is known and an attacker can use the landscape to help mask the attack.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Interception of the cruise missile
While they usually have low RCS and fly very close to the ground (and thus able to hide in ground clutter), but assuming that this issue can be resolved to some extent, what may be the probability of success.
Yes they can be intercepted but, the interceptor must be a lot closer if the cruise missile is hugging the sea or land.
The F-14 Tomcat can detect cruise missiles that are not flying low in access of one hundred miles but, from 22,000 feet against a cruise missile like the Harpoon or Exocet detection range is down to 40 miles!
The same is true for the MiG.-31, down in the weeds the detection range is greatly reduced if the MiG.-31 is above 25,000 to 30,000 feet.
would not penetrate a AD system of an average carrier group – which, by the way, have MUCH weaker AD than an average army AD network.
Actually, the CVBG has a much stronger defense. It is far more difficult for a missile to sneak under detection against a CVBG. First of all a missile that is attacking a CVBG can not be launched 500 plus miles from the target. The missile could arrive at the impact point only to find no target on the horizon.
Even a Tomahawk Missile down at 25 feet to 50 feet is going to be very difficult to detect behind mountains, flying in valleys and depressions. Add stealth to an ALCM like the AGM-129 and the chance of detection greatly drops.
Another aspect of CVBG defense seldom discussed is, the EA-6 Prowler or EF-18 Growler will be around to prevent the attacking aircraft from obtaining an exact position on the CVBG. In order to get through the jamming the launch aircraft must get closer which makes them a target for the interceptors/CAP. Anti-ship missiles in order to extend their range must fly at higher altitudes and drop down to sea level in the terminal phase of flight. This greatly aids the defense in dealing with the threat.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15N Sea Eagle -ADDENDUM
A Few Other Points
The Navy and the Air Force agreed to present a unified view that the planes were designed for different missions. Nevertheless, several alternatives were proposed, including acceptance of one type by both services augmented by purchase of cheaper, lighter fighters. The Air Force agreed to develop the YF-16 and the YF-17.
This appeased the Light Weight Fighter (LWF) Mafia! As an alternative, there was no mention of “second sourcing” or speeding up production rates which would have also driven down the prices. There is no economy in making only a few fighters per month.
Several studies were made by McDD for a carrier version of the Eagle, but none of them was good enough for the Navy.
The study done by the North Dakota ANG, showed that an F-15N with two Phoenix Missiles had less range than the Tomcat with six Phoenix Missiles!
The F-15N would not be able to fulfill the “fleet defense” fighter role. Mass formations of SNA, looking through powerful jamming, operating with autonomy are not performances the F-15N is good at.
An Eagle version was also offered to supplement the expensive F-14
Yes, this only saved a few million dollars.
The AF wanted only Eagles which were regarded as superior to the leightweights.
True it was superior as a “top cover” aircraft to anything being developed in that time period. The F-15 was developed to operate in an envirement where it is outnumbered and still stay around for hours and continue do its job.
The F-15 was designed for stategic fighter operations while the F-14 was designed more for tactical operations in the top cover role. Meaning, the F-14 will go in with the attack package do its job and quickly get out of bad guy land. Even an “alpha” strike is normally are three to four dozen aircraft. The F-14 also comming from the sea has a better chance of surprising the enemy. The F-15 was designed to stay over bad guy land for long periods of time as large attacks are being launched. The F-15 approaching from over land would (normally) have less surprise but more brute force. The F-15 is designed to go in and provide protection for hundreds of aircraft.
The F-15 does already have a tailhook so it could be carrier capable
It takes more than a tailhook to make carrier capable aircraft.
A carrier aircraft must have a structure strong enough to withstand 5,000 launches and landings. That means a far heavier landing gear. Engine intakes designed so they will not injest hot catapult steam. Materials that will withstand the salt spray of the ocean envirement without rust or corrosion. Designed so access to equipment can be done without ladders, stands or, hoist equipment, so the maintenance people can stand on the ground and do the maintenance work. Modifications so the aircraft can fold or be stored in a smaller area than what is taken up by its flight configuration.
If Rafale can make it for france (carrier and land based) why not
the F-15?
The Rafale was designed from day one to be a carrier aircraft also. One reason (among many) the French left the Typhoon program was because of the resistance that was being encountered against the modifications to the aircraft to make it carrier capable.
is it still possible to navalize an aircraft in our days? I mean, the Typhoon for example… ?
Yes but, you must remember until the F/A-18 the technology was not there to design a carrier fighter that could perform as well as the land based fighters. Navy fighters were always just a little behind the Air Force fighters in performance.
The F-16N would not have as good a performance as the F-16A. Major changes to wing size include making the wing 57 sq ft. larger. Changing the leading edges and flaps to reduce the AoA as it approached the carrier. A greater wingspan, elevators, length and weight of the aircraft.
The F-16N had it been adopted was to be built by LTV (Link Tempco Vought -I think). [AW&ST 01/27/75 Pg. 17]
The F-16 was designed with John Boyd’s “energy manuevering theory.” This is great at high speeds but at the low speed end of the envelope it is not as good as the competitors such as the F/A-18 and MiG-29.
The F/A-18L is a far “hotter” aircraft than the Navy’s version. It is that all countries looked around and the F/A-18’s performance was on par with all the new aircraft being designed. Plus the benefit that being strong enough for carrier operations means it was strong enough for 7,500 take-off/landing cycles on land bases. That means if you use your aircraft for a long while you will not have to modify the frame to continue flight operations when the aircraft gets around 5,000 cycles.
The F-4 Phantom’s performance was a lot better when the USAF had McDD go through and remove all the extra weight needed for carrier operations. The IDF/AF was greatly impressed when they got their first USAF F-4’s. They had been using the Navy model but, after they lost so many aircraft during the War of Yom Kippur, the USAF shipped from Germany new F-4’s to help replace the aircraft lost.
if Great Britain cancell it’s order for the F35 (unlikely alas??)
If this happens the UK will be in trouble, what about the Harriers which definitely need to be replaced.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15N Sea Eagle
A landbased F-14 would make a better solution than spending large sums to convert a landbased plane (i.e. F-15) to Naval use!
The truth is both aircraft while designed for aerial combat, the type of combat is entirely different. The F-14A has the primary task of being a defensive weapon, killing mass formations of energy bombers. It was designed to patrol a long way from its base with little or no assistance. The Tomcat was designed to be effective at 20,000 feet where detection of sea skimmer anti-ship is possible at longer ranges.
The F-15 was designed for closer combat than the Tomcat. It was designed to go over bad guy territory and fly around looking for interceptors or any other challengers (Offensive Counter Air -OCA) or, to act as an interceptor (DCA). To be effective at this task, its most effective at 30,000 feet. It has automation that allows the F-15 to kill quickly then move on to another target. To kill and maintain a very high one-sided kill ratio The F-15A was designed to patrol a long way from its base with significant assistance with tankers, fighter-bombers, AWACS, jamming support, etc..
One thing reveiled by the North Dakota ANG in their evaluations for a replacement for the F-106 was that the F-14A has more range carrying six Phoenix Missiles than a F-15A with only two Phoenix Missiles!
The F-14A was designed to patrol a long way from its base with little or no assistance. The Tomcat was designed to be effective at 20,000 feet where detection of sea skimmer anti-ship is possible at longer ranges. The AWG-9 can detect a sea skimming missile like the Harpoon at a distance of forty miles dispite the sea clutter. Now, the AWG-9 could detect the Harpoon long before it dropped down in altitude down to the sea skimming mode.
the F-4 was a sparkling example of a cross-service combat aircraft.
The F-4 was “forced” upon the USAF by Secretary of Defense Joseph McNarmara. McNamara was one who firmly believed in numerical analysis. The services had just previously tried to have one aircraft that would fulfill both requirements of the USAF and Navy. The “Tactical Fighter Experiment” (TFX), the F-111! The TFX was supposed to be a fighter-bomber for the USAF, a fighter-interceptor for the Navy and a light-bomber for the Marines. The technology in aircraft design was not mature enough to make such an aircraft. The F-111 over-weight, under-powered, performance lacking in many aspects, etc.. So with recent history those in the administration who favored this approach to weapon’s design were in no position to object.
The three main items salvaged from the TFX program were the terrain flowing radar, the TF-30 engines and the, AIM-54 Phoenix Missile.
Due to the way the contract was writened, the Navy was not forced to purchase the TFX while the USAF was forced to. Good program developement turn the F-111A into a good medium bomber and ECM platform.
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
You see the problems that exist with the JSF program dispite the improvement in technology over the last forty years.
the F18L for USAF is a good choice, too… the great idea is to make a land-based version of the Navy fighters (Tomcats and Hornets) and throw away F-16 and Eagles!!
Built for different rolls plus the F/A-18A benefitted from the information MDD gained from the developement of the F-15! The YF-17 was about four thousand pounds lighter than the F/A-18A, it was a major redesign. The F/A-18A is not just changed by adding a tailhook and beefing-up a few frame members, no. Work on the conversion was done to improve low speed handling, reduce the angle of attack when landing, increase the width of the landing gear track, improve the landing gear so the landing on a carrier with so a landing 10 feet off the center-line one wing down 20° on the roll axis while decending at a maximum rate of 25 feet per second!
The F/A-18 was originally being designed as two aircraft, one a fighter and the other an attack aircraft. Improvements in software for the flight dynamics computer that allow the F/A-18 to fly differently in the two roles.
As a bomber the aircraft would fly a precise path through the sky. As a fighter to point its nose a lot more.
The USAF had recently embrace Col. John Boyd’s “Energy Maneuvering Theory.” The F-15A and F-16A were both designed using this philosophy. Neither the F-14 or the F/A-18 were designed with this theory in mind.
Adrian
Sign In
