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?

[wlewisiii]

When I lived in Madison our house was under one of the main approaches to the airport, fairly short distance to it so most aircraft were dropping or raising gear as the passed over us. Lots of military aircraft due to the ANG base there.

The most memorable were the B-17 coming in for the airshow the weekend before 9/11 (they got stuck there for the whole stand down).

A DC-3 at the same air show. IIRC, they left Monday rather than waiting till Tuesday as the B-17 was doing for whatever reason.

A C-5 leaving. That sucker shook the house at 11:30 PM like a storm front. It was so loud my ex thought they were going to crash into our neighborhood.

Air Force One - that 747 rattled our teeth but oh, what a beautiful aircraft from below like that.

Lots of F-16s, a fair number of A-10s and the occasional Naval Reserve F-18.

 

[GreenKnight121]

The only F-8s I've seen flying were in the Gulf of Arabia in 1987.

My squadron was part of CVW-2 aboard CV-61 Ranger, providing air cover for the tanker convoys in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war. FS Clemenceau was also in the area on the same mission... our respective Captains agreed to provide air cover for each others' "Steel Beach Recreation Days".

So, as we were chilling on Ranger's flight deck with our 2 allotted beers... a Bear, escorted by a pair of F-8E(FN)s, flew by at about 3,000 feet ASL and 2,000 feet to our port - stern to bow.

It was nice to see them doing their designed job, not just in an airshow.

 

[rob23]

The F4s had an unmistakable sound, too.

But for all the military aircraft I've heard in my lifetime, nothing compares to the sound of a C-5 winding up before letting off the brakes.

We moved to Marietta GA in 1967 as my dad got hired by Lockheed to work on the C-5. He quit after a month. Anyway, saw lots of C-5's after the maiden flight and always thought they sounded like a giant vacuum cleaner and appeared to float more than fly. The size of the thing made it seem unreal.

 

[GrauGeist]

We moved to Marietta GA in 1967 as my dad got hired by Lockheed to work on the C-5. He quit after a month. Anyway, saw lots of C-5's after the maiden flight and always thought they sounded like a giant vacuum cleaner and appeared to float more than fly. The size of the thing made it seem unreal.

Agreed.

Where I grew up in Southern California, there were all sorts of military aircraft flying around, but the sight and sound of a C-5 was always exciting.

 

[Ovod]

I would expect that if the F-110/F-4 hadn't been adopted, then we'd have built more F-105's for bombing and F-106's as fighters. Perhaps we might have taken some of the lessons of the Dassault Mirage series, especially from the later IAI variants, the Nesher and Kfir?

I would imagine that the F-102 would stick around longer too in the training role and perhaps as an F-5 equivalent role?

What lessons would they be? Bear in mind the US already had the F-5 and F-104 available.

 

[rob23]

What lessons would they be? Bear in mind the US already had the F-5 and F-104 available.

Didn't the USAF hate the F-5 and F-104 and retire both of them rather quickly from combat capable use? I always thought it strange the F-5 was used to simulate the MiG21 but otherwise not good enough to take on a MiG21 role in the USAF.

From what I've read the F-106 was more than capable as an air to air fighter but the decision was to keep it as a dedicated interceptor. That seems to whittle down the inventory available quite a bit.

 

[GrauGeist]

The US didn't "hate" the F-5, the F-5 was designed as a low-cost export day fighter and the USAF at the time didn't see an immediate need for it.

 

[rob23]

The US didn't "hate" the F-5, the F-5 was designed as a low-cost export day fighter and the USAF at the time didn't see an immediate need for it.

Strong dislike maybe? HA! Thanks-

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Didn't the USAF hate the F-5 and F-104 and retire both of them rather quickly from combat capable use? I always thought it strange the F-5 was used to simulate the MiG21 but otherwise not good enough to take on a MiG21 role in the USAF.

From what I've read the F-106 was more than capable as an air to air fighter but the decision was to keep it as a dedicated interceptor. That seems to whittle down the inventory available quite a bit.

The F-104 was designed based on what the USAF wanted at the time. As requirements changed it was decided (probably within the USAF and Lockheed) that the F-104 could be used as a low altitude nuclear bomber. Many foreign operators did use the F-104 in the intercept role, the Italians flew their 104s until the early 80s IIRC.

The F-5 was not hated. My father in law flew it and thought it was a great aircraft but it seems into the 60s the USAF felt "bigger is better."

The F-106 was a very capable air-to-air fighter (my father in law also flew the F-106)

 

[GrauGeist]

In the 50's and 60's, the idea of the day, was sleek, wicked fast interceptors that could hurl missiles.

It wasn't until the Vietnam war, that the USAF had to rethink that idea.

 

[wlewisiii]

The F-5 was not hated. My father in law flew it and thought it was a great aircraft but it seems into the 60s the USAF felt "bigger is better."

Makes me sad that the F-20 went nowhere. Such a beautiful aircraft. Ah, well, such is politics.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

We moved to Marietta GA in 1967 as my dad got hired by Lockheed to work on the C-5. He quit after a month. Anyway, saw lots of C-5's after the maiden flight and always thought they sounded like a giant vacuum cleaner and appeared to float more than fly. The size of the thing made it seem unreal.

Watching them on final approach, to my eyes they always looked like they were about to stall out, they're so big they look slow.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Makes me sad that the F-20 went nowhere. Such a beautiful aircraft. Ah, well, such is politics.

My guess has been that it didn't have much room for growth? I liked it when it was floated, but with F-16 and F-18 already rolling off the lines, perhaps USAF didn't want to invest in a third fighter that might not have as much headroom?

 

[GTX]

the Italians flew their 104s until the early 80s IIRC.

And then some - The F-104 was officially retired from AMI service in 2004.

it seems into the 60s the USAF felt "bigger is better."

indeed, which is why I still contend that other than a totally new platform (maybe akin to a single seat F-111), a development of the F-101 should still be considered. Twin engined, long range, able to be armed with guns and missiles, I actually think it would have found favour over the F-106 had the F-4 notbeen an option. Perhaps the J79 powered F-101D version thereof:

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And then some - The F-104 was officially retired from AMI service in 2004.

Now that you mention it - that's correct! I remember the retirement ceremonies.

 

[GTX]

BTW, in case anyone questions if the J79 fitted into the F-101, see the below actual testbed:

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It was a weird plane before the surgery you've depicted

 

[SaparotRob]

Kinda' screams "Outta' my way!"

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Kinda' screams "Outta' my way!"

... or "727 without the passengers"?

 

[SaparotRob]

The 727 is my all-time favorite passenger jet. Go Boeing!