I really thought I could remember it as well:
According to Wikipedia:
On June 7, 1981, a flight of Israeli Air Force F-16A fighter aircraft, with an escort of F-15As, bombed and heavily damaged the Osirak reactor.
I remember that I was baffled (at that time) by the “smaller” F-16 carry the bombs while the ‘bigger” F-15 was the escort.
it must have been one of the first occasions where F15/16 acted together.
Why the F-35? I thought that was getting traction now.
Is it because it is designed by comittee? (like the duck: it can swim, but not so well, it can walk, but not so well, it can fly, but not so well, However, it can do all of it).
Is the sticky thing the “joint” => too many different requirements?
I was waiting for the F-111. It surely proved itself in the Libya raid, but could it have been done with F14/15/16’s? Like the israeli raid on Iraq with F15/16’s?
Although a technical advanced platform, how useful was it in Vietnam after all?
yours,
Can you explain what it is that you are trying to get at? The airplane was used for air defense and ground attack…what “full story” is it that needs to “come out”?
As I understand it, the F-104 saw limited service in USAF as it was an interim measure before the delivery of the Delta Darts. Also it was not suited as an interceptor, (armament and range).
USAF reduced their order from 755 down to only 155.
I never understood the USAF rejection of the F-104 as it was good enough for the European market.
Maybe the heavy bribery also had a lot to do with that.
Maybe just a lot of speculation, but I still think there is more to it.
Yours,
Misunderstanding? Probably the still too low awareness how big a role the nuclear mission played in the design of the century series and how secondary their conventional capabilities actually were.
That is a good point.
When did the focus on nuclear strike (only) start to change in your opinion? with the design of the F14/F15? or later?
Did we see something similar in Russian designs?
Yours,
They didn’t call it the “sailor inhaler” for nothing.
I have never heard that one. Very good.
Like the F-107: the man-eater (at least if you should try to eject).
The USAGE of the F-104 by USAF is surely something.
i wonder if the full story about that will ever come out.
The X-32: Could it have lost because of its looks? I know we are rational thinking people, but the X-32 does look a bit “odd”.
The F-104
Whether the F-104 was really superb is still a good question.
Obviously taking into account what it is going to do.
However, the European “deal of the century” with Germany spearheading the purchase must also be viewed in the light of the “incentives” paid. $10 million to Straus, $1 million to the Belgium prince, etc etc.
The F-104 must have been up against Mirage at that time.
Ivan
“Mis-understood a/c”
Another candidate could be the YB-49 Flying Wing.
Good concept, but…
True, the ‘390 would be an alternative.
I have not heard or seen anything in SA that the 390 is being considered.
The only piece of info I have is that the focus is on upgrading C130’s.
They were apparantly upgraded in 2008 (all 9 of them), but whta more is or can be done is a good question. Wiki has them as C130BZ.
However, it could involve the C130J purchase instead of upgrading.
A400M and South Africa
South Africa was supposed to be a major partner on the A400M as well.
However, it just got too costly.
SA jumped ship this year and is claiming their deposit back.
The only alternative for SA seems to be upgrading C130’s.
I can see ther Germans are also starting to drag their feet now.
Yours,
The most “misunderstood” a/c, your own list
Could it be interesting to have a poll on the most “misunderstood” a/c ?
I think I would nominate the F-105: A figher with an internal bomb bay? no.
SAC platform, No. Agile: well, no. escort: no. TAC, well, no.
Nuclear platform, but used for something else.
Well?
The most ‘misunderstood” a/c
Hey, come to think of: We have a thread: the a/c that never took to the skies”.
What if we have a thread: The most misunderstood a/c in your opinion.
I think I wold nominate my F-105
reg,
I was under the impression that the wrap-around was in early 70’s. but ok
Yes, the “F” for the F-111 was a bit misleading
Ihave always looked at the F-105 as a bit of a misunderstood a/c.
Neither here nor there. Designed for one thing, used for something else.
Yours,
Ahhh, ok. so F-105 is a historic flight. well, ok, yes, no.
A good question for Don: The camo paint: The “typical” Vietnam paint would be the SE scheme. That I know.
However, I have now (thanks to ARC forum) been educated that the belly might have been painted grey to begin with, but that it became clear that even a grey colour would look dark against the sky.
Later models were then painted camo on the underside as well as (apparantly) the eye notices colour changes (grey to camo to grey again) rather than the actual colours. It would then make sense to have the belly in camo paint as well, due to turns, banking, etc etc.
The question is: The late models you served: Was the belly also camo painted and when about did it become the norm?
Yours,
Ivan
Thanks for your postings.
It must have been an experience to be around the Thud.
I am fascinated by the F-105 somehow. I also think it got bad press.
But I have also heard the arguments that a fighter with an internal bomb bay (!) was not what TAC wanted and that SAC where not interested either.
Should it have had a “B” designation?
I am busy building the scale model, and comparing it to my other “favourite” (the F4), it looks bigger, sleek, but not as versatile as the F4.
Was it also end of the line for any more innovations on the “century” series? Time to move into the F-14/15/18 developments?
Yours,