If the USAF would not have chosen a version of the Navy's F4 Phantom as its primary fighter through 1960s to mid-1970s, what would it have chosen?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Perhaps. F-105 production ended in 1964. It seemed the USAF wanted to maintain the F-106 as a CONUS interceptor
wlewisiii said:
I would imagine that the F-102 would stick around longer too in the training role and perhaps as an F-5 equivalent role?
Click to expand...
Again a guess. I know from folks who flew both, the F-102 was a handful, both to fly and maintain. The F-5 on the other hand was a simple aircraft to fly and maintain. IMO it's role could have been expanded but it seemed the brass at the time wanted large, powerful fighters.
Admiral Beez said:
Why not just put bombs on the F-106?
Click to expand...
Not that easy - the F-106 did have an internal bomb bay and was designed to go like a bat out of hell. IIRC I don't think there was an ability to mount wing pylons aside those used for drop tanks.
 
That was something I wondered about while writing my post, but I couldn't find anything online about how they flew. I vaguely remember the 106 being praised for how it flew but I couldn't find that info either.
 
GreenKnight121 said:
Still the case that the F-108 had been canceled 3 years before the USAF ever considered the F-4, so it would still be out of the running.
Click to expand...
The F-108 was cancelled due to budget issues.
The Air Force was evaluating the F-110 shortly after the F-108 was cancelled.
To provide an idea of the timeline, the F-110 designation was changed to F-4 in 1962 with the introduction of the tri-service designation act.
The first F-4s built to Air Force specifications were delivered in 1963.

If the F-4 was kept solely to the Navy, the Air Force would still have it's "Century" fighters...but what to replace them with, then?
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Not that easy - the F-106 did have an internal bomb bay and was designed to go like a bat out of hell. IIRC I don't think there was an ability to mount wing pylons aside those used for drop tanks.
Click to expand...
We've seen this pic here on the forum before. I recall someone said it was a mock-up or phot-op only. But perhaps this is a sign of what was possible if there's no F-4 for the multirole tasks.

 
Admiral Beez said:
We've seen this pic here on the forum before. I recall someone said it was a mock-up or phot-op only. But perhaps this is a sign of what was possible if there's no F-4 for the multirole tasks.

View attachment 699879
Click to expand...
It also looks like there's an AIM-4 hanging in the weapons bay, Probably a mock up

A possibility but then you lose the ability to use the wing tanks. The F-106 wasn't exactly fuel friendly although I supposed you can carry bombs on one wing and one tank on another. Lastly are the wing pylons stressed to carry bombs?
 
To replace the F4 in this timescale with a multi role aircraft is a tall order. The best that I can come up with would be a development of he Saab 35 Draken.

It had a good performance and there were attack versions but I admit it isn't an F4. That said, nothing I can think of carried 8 x AAM or lord knows how many bombs.
 
I agree. Since the F4 was made by the same people, if just revising the F-101 would have made sense, they would have done that.

the one fighter we seem to be forgetting about is the F-107. I think it rightfully lost out to the F-105 as a strike fighter, as s general purpose fighter it showed promise, at least if you could avoid getting sucked into the engine if you ejected.
 
special ed said:
The 106 with a J79 in place of the J75. I have mentioned a friend who flew 106s said that with half of the fuel gone, they were capable of vertical climb. The 106 with the J79 would have been a super sport.
Click to expand...
So... REDUCING the thrust by more than 36% dry and over 30% in afterburner would somehow make it perform better?

I think you are confusing the J75 with the J57... the J57 pretty well matched the J79 in a larger heavier package (not surprising considering the J79 was 4 years newer in an era when engine tech was advancing rapidly), but the J75 was a far more powerful engine!

As for engine weight, the J79 would only reduce the empty weight from 24,420 lb to 22,250 lb - and gross weight from 34,510 lb to 32,520 lb.


J79-15 (most powerful version before 1966): thrust 10,900 lb.s.t. (17,000 lb.s.t. afterburner); weight 3,685 lb

J75-17 (version in F-106A/B): thrust 17,200 lb.s.t. (24,500 lb.s.t. afterburner); weight 5,875 lb
 
McNamara became Secretary of Defense on 21 Jan 1961.

F-106 last production aircraft delivered July 1961. Further orders were being contemplated after McNamara became Secretary of Defense.
F-107 was ditched in 1957 when the USAF chose the F-105
F-108 ditched at the end of 1959 on cost grounds when the Soviet ICBM was perceived as the greater future threat rather than the high altitude bomber.

Perhaps the question should be why wouldn't the USAF choose the F-110/F4 Sceptre / Phantom (other than USAF/USN politics)? It seems to have outperformed everything else around at the time in the test programme Operation Highspeed which was run in late 1961. From Joe Baugher's site:-

"The impressive performance of the Navy F4H Phantom immediately caught the attention of the USAF, which ordinarily would have been quite reluctant even to consider any aircraft originally designed for the Navy. However, under pressure from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who wanted to reduce defense expenditures by achieving greater commonality between the aircraft flown by the various services, the Air Force agreed in 1961 to undertake an evaluation of the F4H-1 Phantom II.

A comparative evaluation between the F4H-1 and the F-106A took place under the code name Operation Highspeed. The F4H-1 had better overall speed, altitude and range performance than the F-106A. In addition, it could carry heavier loads than the F-106A over longer distances and had a 25 percent greater radar range. Later, the Air Force also looked into the possibility of using the Phantom as a tactical fighter and as a tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The F4H-1 was much more versatile than the Air Force's F-105 Thunderchief, since it could not only carry similar external loads but was also potentially a much better air superiority fighter due to its more favorable wing and power loadings. In the reconnaissance role, the Phantom offered a much better performance than the RF-101A/C, and unlike the Voodoo, could be fitted for night photographic missions.

Since the Phantom had so much going for it, in January of 1962, President Kennedy requested Congressional approval for the procurement of F4H-1 derivatives for the Air Force under the designation F-110. The F-110A was to be the tactical fighter version, with RF-110A being the tactical reconnaissance version. The name Spectre was assigned to the aircraft.

In support of this program, the Defense Department instructed that McDonnell deliver two Navy F4H-1s to the Air Force for evaluation. On January 24, 1962, the two Navy F4H-1s (BuNos 149405 and 149406) were delivered to the Air Force at Langley AFB in Virginia. They were painted in USAF markings with the designation "F-110A" prominently displayed on the nose, but initially retained their Navy BuNos. They were later given Air Force serials 62-12168 and 62-12169 respectively.

The results of the trials were impressive. The Phantom met or exceeded all the Air Force's expectations. In March of 1962, the Defense Department announced that land-based versions of the Phantom were to be the standard tactical fighter and tactical reconnaissance aircraft of the USAF. On March 30, McDonnell received a letter of intent for one F-110A (serial number 62-12199), and on May 29, another letter was received for a pair of YRF-110A reconnaissance aircraft (62-12200 and 62-12201)."


In the late 1950s / early 1960s the F-5 only seems to have been considered as a light fighter for foreign air forces. Funding for it initially came from the FX programme, a USAF project that supported the Military Assistance Programme, aimed at providing equipment to friendly nations to counteract the effects of communism. It was supported by the DoD's International Security Affairs Division. So it was completely outwith traditional USAF thinking.

As for buying from overseas, well those opportunities were as rare as hens teeth for a mainstream USAF fighter aircraft.

So the Phantom was outperforming everything else in the inventory. If you don't choose the Sceptre / Phantom it seems to me that you need to look at a clean sheet of paper design or heavily modify an existing aircraft = lots of money to be spent on development (good news for the aircraft companies). But defence expenditure needs to be cut or at least redirected towards closing the missile gap and funding NASA in the space race (political decision) = no money in the pot for development of new aircraft for the USAF. US defence expenditure fell as a % of GDP in the early 1960s once the Kennedy Govt settled in.:-

U.S. Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2024

Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are...
www.macrotrends.net

Seems like the selection of the F-110 / F-4 Sceptre / Phantom then becomes a no brainer.
 
Last edited:
Could I just say how nice it is to see the F-8 mentioned here in a positive way? For a couple of years Tom White and I were the airframe guys for the last 30-35 Crusaders in US service, at the Naval Air Rework Facility in Norfolk, and in that short time I absolutely fell in love with the aircraft. I always like to have people look at this clip from a French airshow of one of their F-8s for two reasons. First, we'll never again hear that shrieking howl from a pure turbojet (starting at about 6:10) and then watching it break and turn 180 degrees from there -- well, who could ask for more maneuverability than that? Once you're able to reach the pilot's physical limits, you don't need anything more from the airframe and engine. I know, it's flying very light, not combat loaded, but it still makes me very nostalgic every time I see it, and I wonder what F8U-3 might have been developed into over time.
 
1983, I worked as a porter for a car dealership in Marietta, GA. The dealership was directly across from Dobbins AFB, which shared a runway with NAS Atlanta and Lockheed. Because of the terrain, the dealership was above the Dobbins runway so we looked 'down' at it. This particular day was foggy and cool, just a bit misty. By happenstance, I was outside and nonchalantly looking over at the base as was my habit as an airplane buff. Suddenly out of the clouds there was the nose of a jet, hauling ass, the landing gear was already retracted and in a flash it was over my head then I heard that awesome J-57 howl that had some salesmen dash outside to see what it was. By then it was long gone, so I just smiled and yelled over to them RF-8 Crusader! It is a brief sighting and sound I will never forget.
 
I was called out from our NARF engineering offices to the flight test hangars at the other end of the field, to verify that a nose gear steering fix on one of the RF-8Gs was working so the aircraft could do its test flight. I drove over there, and as I turned onto the access road that led to the tarmac in front of the hangars the RF-8G was taxiing straight toward me, turning left and right. Obviously things were OK so I parked my car and walked over to the edge of the runway to watch the takeoff. The RF-8G went down to the far end of the field, paused for clearance, then lit his afterburner and came racing toward my end of the field. He was nearly at flying speed when he passed me, just about 150 feet from where I was standing, and the bass roar from that A/B just shook every cell in my body. So I know what you mean about "sighting and sound I will never forget"!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
548
Thumpalumpacus
A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Luft.4
L
M
Last USAF KC-10A Heads For The Boneyard
Replies
14
Views
885
MIflyer
M
Is it possible that dogfighting could make a comeback as the primary fighting style?
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
BiffF15
M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
701
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register