Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yeas and no - the west thought the MiG-25 was a lot more capable but there was still a need for an air superiority fighter that can totally dominate any Soviet product in any environment to include "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) that may limit the aircraft from fully exploiting it's capabilities due to political situations (like Vietnam). The F-14, although a naval fighter, had the same situation.Wasn't the F-15 designed for a non existent threat? The threat that existed until that MiG-25 visited Japan and the west got a good look at it?
It's ironic to me as the Foxbat was designed to counter a nonexistent threat.
Well the CF-105's demise had a lot of politics involved and the program was in the bulls-eye of its opponents years before the first one was built. In it's day, the CF-105 was one of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world, so when the Diefenbaker Government killed it, many people were upset. When the F-108 program was cancelled, there was hardly a peep.If either had entered operational service I presume they would have ended up serving instead of the likes of F-106s, so in Air Defense Command / Aerospace Defense Command and Air National Guard units. I wonder if there would have been a chance of Candaian ones as well?
Both the F-16(first) then follow up F-15 arose from John Boyd inspired crusade demonstratng poor energy manueverabilty of Century series fighters (and F-4) in comparison to Soviet fighters. The Pentagon hated Boyd but capitulated to the facts. The primary difference between F-15 and F-16 was size dictated by Radar, as well as mission growth capability of F-15 over F-16The F-15 was also built not just to counter the MiG-25, but to "one-up" the MiG-23 Flogger.
Yes... we didn't just have "Foxbat Fright"... we also had "Frogger Fever"!
Many people now compare the Flogger to the F-4 Phantom II as "near-equals save for avionics"- at the time we didn't understand just how behind the Soviets were in avionics, and considered the MiG-23 (first flight in 1967, just like the public showing of the MiG-25) to be better than the F-4!
It is NEVER a good idea to deliberately go to war with equal equipment to your foe... you always try to show up with better and hope you can afford enough of them, and the Soviets were looking like they were going to build a lot of Floggers, so either we needed to put an improved F-4* back into production (bad idea) or come up with a new air-superiority fighter that was significantly better than the Flogger or F-4.
The F-X program that had started in 1965 as a F-100/etc replacement just got the USAF the A-7 (they had wanted something like the F-5E), and was extended in 1966 to produce an F-4 replacement. This was better than the MiG-23, but not quite good enough to counter what we in 1967 believed the MiG-25 to be, so a redefinition for an even better (and more-expensive) air-superiority aircraft was ordered.
So you see, the F-4 replacement program was already underway, boosted by the appearance of the MiG-23 - the MiG-25 was just the "final straw" to get Congress to approve the program.
* One possibility could have been McD/D's proposed F-4FVS (proposed to the USN in late 1965) - with a shoulder-mounted variable-sweep wing!
The USN obviously passed on that in favor of the F-14, for many similar reasons to the USAF's pushing for the F-15... but the primary mission & design choices of the F-14 and F-15 were too different for another joint buy.
View attachment 677037View attachment 677038View attachment 677039View attachment 677040View attachment 677041
At first glance I thought the USAF were thinking of buying the TSR2
Both the F-16(first) then follow up F-15 arose from John Boyd inspired crusade demonstratng poor energy manueverabilty of Century series fighters (and F-4) in comparison to Soviet fighters. The Pentagon hated Boyd but capitulated to the facts. The primary difference between F-15 and F-16 was size dictated by Radar, as well as mission growth capability of F-15 over F-16
Interesting that somehow you think that the program that started first (1966), saw the selection of the winner first (1969), and produced a flying prototype first (1972) is somehow a "followup" program?Both the F-16(first) then follow up F-15 arose from John Boyd inspired crusade demonstratng poor energy manueverabilty of Century series fighters (and F-4) in comparison to Soviet fighters. The Pentagon hated Boyd but capitulated to the facts. The primary difference between F-15 and F-16 was size dictated by Radar, as well as mission growth capability of F-15 over F-16
I stand corrected on F-15 start date.Interesting that somehow you think that the program that started first (1966), saw the selection of the winner first (1969), and produced a flying prototype first (1972) is somehow a "followup" program?
Yes, those are the dates for the F-15.
Here are the dates for the F-16:
Initiation of design concept studies: 1969 (F-15 final selection same year)
Creation of formal program for light-weight fighter: 1971 (5 years after F-15 program creation)
Selection of finalists for LWF flying prototypes: 1972 (F-15 first flight year)
First flights of YF-16 & YF-18: 1974 (F-15B delivery to USAF to establish training squadron)
Selection of winner: 1975
Production F-16A first flight: 1978 (F-15C & F-15D first flights)
First delivery to USAF: 1979 (F-15 first air-air "kill" in combat by IAF)
The "Fighter Mafia" did, during the 1965-68 period, succeed in getting the F-15 reduced in size and weight from its early concepts... but it was still considered "too big & expensive to buy in sufficient numbers" - which only then resulted in the LWF program being created, leading to the F-16!
The F-16 was a "mission-shrink" follow-on to the "full-capability" F-15!
Ironic especially when the F-108 was actually better in a number of waysWell the CF-105's demise had a lot of politics involved and the program was in the bulls-eye of its opponents years before the first one was built. In it's day, the CF-105 was one of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world, so when the Diefenbaker Government killed it, many people were upset. When the F-108 program was cancelled, there was hardly a peep.
Actually, Boyd made some errors when calculating the F-4's performance. Early figures had often indicated the MiG-21 would be able to outmaneuver and out-sustain the F-4's in turns. While, the F-4 had a higher stall-speed that meant it couldn't turn as tight as the MiG-21, it could actually sustain higher loads in turns up to around 30000-32000', out-accelerate and out-climb the MiG-21 up to 30000-32000' (I'm not sure if this has to do with AoA, inlet efficiency, or engine characteristics -- it's beyond my pay-grade).Both the F-16(first) then follow up F-15 arose from John Boyd inspired crusade demonstratng poor energy manueverabilty of Century series fighters (and F-4) in comparison to Soviet fighters.
Well the CF-105's demise had a lot of politics involved and the program was in the bulls-eye of its opponents years before the first one was built. In it's day, the CF-105 was one of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world, so when the Diefenbaker Government killed it, many people were upset. When the F-108 program was cancelled, there was hardly a peep.
Indeed, even decades later some clowns were trying to push the CF-105 as an alternative to the F-35 to replace the CF-188s. Lunacy.Yup, nationalism accounted for that bad press, the CF-105 meant so much more to Canada than as an advanced aircraft programme for its air force. The British looked at the CF-105 as an interceptor at one stage but decided against it because its performance fell short of the F.155T interceptor programme. That project, which was looked to be fulfilled by the Fairey Delta tender eventually fell victim to Duncan Sandys' 1957 Defence White Paper, speaking of national outcries...
Lunacy.