Active Military Fighter Aircraft of the 70'ies

[AveMarica]

On the speed thing, it is interesting with fighters raw speed topped out 50 years ago.

F-104 mach 2
F-106 mach 2.3
F-14 mach 2.34
F-15 mach 2.5
F-16 mach 2.1
F-18 mach 1.8
F-22 mach 2.25
F-35 mach 1.6

Of course those are clean numbers since in reality the drag penalties for an actual combat load can be significant, exception being the 5th gens that can sortie with a combat load internal. An F-16 with fuel tank(s), targeting pod, a couple JDAMs/Paveways, and a couple AAMs probably isn't even breaking the sound barrier, but an F-35 on same combat mission is still able to hit exactly mach 1.6 since targeting pod built-in, long legs on internal fuel, and weapon load in the bay.

Back on topic though, can we get some Kfir love in this thread? Colombia and Sri Lanka still roll with 'em...

 

[Kruska]

And each of those aircraft were the fastest thing in the sky at the time.

"Speed is life" is a saying among fighter pilots. The fighter pilot's motto, “Speed is Life,” is the gospel in combat,

Naturally - since ground based AA missiles and Air to Air missiles didn't exist - speed was logically the main focus.
If e.g. the Americans had developed an Air to Air missile - aka an AIM-9 by 1944, a P-40 could have taken down a Me-262

The same goes for the A-10 equipped with e.g. AIM-9 - off course it could/can take out an e.g. MiG-21, a SU7&Co, or a MiG23.

And speed is relative to the mission spectrum - e.g. if dumb-ass Goering wouldn't have squandered the Luftwaffe's Bf-110 force in the BoB - the Brit's would have most likely had to abandon their night bombing raids over Germany - especially between 1940-1943.

Those Wellington's, and Lancaster's were lumbering around at an average cruise-speed of 280-320km/h - even a Fiat Cr.42, or the A-10 equivalent of it's time, the Hs-129 could have plucked those bombers from the sky.

 

[Kruska]

Back on topic though, can we get some Kfir love in this thread? Colombia and Sri Lanka still roll with 'em...

That's why I already turned towards the Mirage - the IAI Nesher would be next.

 

[Kruska]

The IAI Nesher, the Israeli clone of the Mirage 5, and the development of the Kfir​

Not really a "new" generation fighter-aircraft of the 70'ies - produced in rather low numbers - but of extreme importance for Israels IAF was the Nesher and it's follow up replacement - the Kfir.

The origins of the IAI Nesher date back to the 1960s, when Israel and France had been allies to create a new fighter based on the Mirage III, specifically designed to suit the needs of the Israeli Air Force. This is how Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Dassault Aviation gave life to the project that led to the Mirage 5. But the situation became complicated after 1967.

The growing tension in the Middle East led the then French president, Charles de Gaulle, to impose an arms embargo on Israel. A radical Measure that came into force just days before the Six Day War broke out. And things got even worse after Operation Gift in 1968, where Israeli special forces infiltrated Beirut International Airport, Lebanon, and destroyed a dozen passenger planes.

From there on, the blockade or rather Arms-embargo not only affected deliveries of the Mirage 5s that Israel had already paid for, but also the provision of spare parts for the existing Mirage IIIs serving in its Air Force.

Beyond the fuselage equal to that of the Mirage 5, the Israeli aeronautical firm IAI had two great challenges with the Nesher: instrumentation and motorization. The first was solved by incorporating locally produced electronics, while the second one had some “outside help”. Specifically, that of a Swiss engineer named Alfred Frauenknecht who sold IAI the secrets of Snecma Atar in exchange for $200,000.

The USA under the Nixon administration however had discovered it's interest towards Israel - as such the missing jet-engines and technology from France in regards to the Snecma Atar and the then available General Electric J79, also in view of the IDF's planed purchase of the F-4 paved the way for the development of the Kfir.

The striking thing about the IAI Nesher is that it had a very brief life in the service of the Israeli Air Force. In total, 61 units were manufactured: 51 single-seaters and 10 two-seaters. However, already in 1974 its production was put aside to favor the development of a new version based on the Mirage 5 baptized as IAI Kfir.

Contrary to popular believe, the Kfir was not based on the Nesher
When Israel opted to withdraw the IAI Nesher to favor the development of the Kfir, existing models of the Mirage 5 clone were not converted to the new variant. It was decided to sell them to Argentina which incorporated them into its Air Force between 1978 and 1980, under the designation Dagger and the later enhanced version being termed Finger.

F-21 Kfir Fighter Jet​

The F-21 Kfir fighter jet is a single-seat multitask fighter built by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). The fighter craft was first built for the Israeli Air Force (IAF).

Failure of Mirage V’s power plant, the French Atar 9 engine, led to the development of Kfir jets. IAI built 100 Kfirs including the first series Kfir C1, multirole fighter Kfir C2, single-seat version Kfir C7 and double-seated TC2 Kfir models. These models began operations on 9 November 1977, during attack on Tel Azia, a terrorist training base in Lebanon, and came back with success.

F-21 Kfir Fighter Jet

The F-21 Kfir fighter jet is a multitask fighter built by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). The fighter craft was first built for Israeli Air Force.

www.airforce-technology.com

Dassault Falcon designed the Kfir by replacing Mirage V’s French Atar 9 engine with General Electric’s J79 jet engine. The J79 provides more thrust by consuming less fuel. Dassault also altered the engine configuration and enlarged the fuel intake capacity. Kfir is, thus, said to be the advanced version of Mirage V. The J79-J1E turbojet engine, provided a maximum range of around 775km and a maximum speed of Mach 2.3. Enabling the Kfir C2 to carry 6,085kg of weapon load on nine hard points.

IAI initially chose two engine plants, the General Electric J79-GE-17 jet engine and the Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan for manufacturing the Kfir fighter, but later produced Kfirs with just the J79-GE-17 jet engine.

The Kfir was sold to various countries and around 27 have been leased to the US Navy and Marine Corps, and are also being used as aggressor aircraft, with no weapons, by the US Navy, for providing dissimilar air combat training.

 

[Vrenn]

Naturally - since ground based AA missiles and Air to Air missiles didn't exist - speed was logically the main focus.
If e.g. the Americans had developed an Air to Air missile - aka an AIM-9 by 1944, a P-40 could have taken down a Me-262

The same goes for the A-10 equipped with e.g. AIM-9 - off course it could/can take out an e.g. MiG-21, a SU7&Co, or a MiG23.

First rule of engagement when a pure fighter attacks an Attack Fighter, the Attack Fighter evades with one exception. The A-10 didn't shoot down a single fighter. But during Vietnam, the A-7, when jumped by migs, half dropped their loads and went Mig Hunting. The problem the A-10 has is that if the Fighter continues to keep his speed up to at least 600 mph and attacks at an oblique angel the A-10 doesn't have the time to bring the gun on target. Sure it takes a few gun runs to down the A-10 (take out the engines) but the hand writing is on the wall. The A-10 is too slow and needs total air superiority before it can operate.

And speed is relative to the mission spectrum - e.g. if dumb-ass Goering wouldn't have squandered the Luftwaffe's Bf-110 force in the BoB - the Brit's would have most likely had to abandon their night bombing raids over Germany - especially between 1940-1943.

Not applicable.

Those Wellington's, and Lancaster's were lumbering around at an average cruise-speed of 280-320km/h - even a Fiat Cr.42, or the A-10 equivalent of it's time, the Hs-129 could have plucked those bombers from the sky.

Still not applicable.

 

[Kruska]

First rule of engagement when a pure fighter attacks an Attack Fighter, the Attack Fighter evades with one exception. The A-10 didn't shoot down a single fighter. But during Vietnam, the A-7, when jumped by migs, half dropped their loads and went Mig Hunting. The problem the A-10 has is that if the Fighter continues to keep his speed up to at least 600 mph and attacks at an oblique angel the A-10 doesn't have the time to bring the gun on target. Sure it takes a few gun runs to down the A-10 (take out the engines) but the hand writing is on the wall. The A-10 is too slow and needs total air superiority before it can operate.

Since the Taliban didn't have an Air-force - what aircraft was the A-10 supposed to shoot down?
The standard US & NATO fighter-aircraft ruled the sky over Iraq - what aircraft was the A-10 supposed to shoot down?
The same applied in regards to A-10 missions in Kosovo and Serbia.

You can't compare a A-7 mission of e.g. Vietnam with the mission spectrum that the A-10 was intended for towards the Warsaw-Pact.
Which was loitering and engaging as many "unknown" targets as possible - unlike an A-7 that simply dropped of it's bomb load on a predesignated coordinate - and not even knowing what it hit or if it had even succeeded in hitting anything - whilst flying straight back to home base.

According to (those known) anticipated ammo/kill statistic fantasies of the US ARMY, the VC and NVA had already ceased to exist in 1969.
So obviously those e.g. A-7's didn't hit shit in regards to military valued targets - but mostly evaporated Vietnamese villages, paddy-fields and their civilians.

Far more important; neither NATO nor the USA had the required ammo and $$$ to simply perform Vietnam like "drop and vanish" missions involving CAS, against the Warsaw Pact armored and semi-armored fielded numbers. How many tanks and armored vehicles did the NVA have?

In case no one told you -the US did not win the Vietnam war. And it wasn't due to the Hippies, but exorbitant $$$ sums needed to perform outdated and inefficient e.g. A-7 bombing runs, that in majority only contributed towards killing civilians and couldn't even destroy/harass effectively the infrastructure of the VC&NVA jungle trails - needless to say, to eliminate the NVA and it's hardware at affordable costs.

Not applicable.

It very much is - independent of Goering's designation and dreams of the "heavy fighter" - the Bf-110 was a suitable ground attack aircraft and performed excellent in those missions just as in their assigned night-fighter role. Once the Bf-110 went into turns and climbs the speed and its maneuverability dropped drastically and therefore it wasn't any match towards a fighter-aircraft. More then 85% of aerial kills claimed by Bf-110 pilots were done on swift, low level direct passes towards airfields or low flying enemy aircraft that were caught unaware, and night-fighter missions, and not in some dogfights against fighters.

Therefore a Bf-110 (fighter) was no match at all towards a designated fighter aircraft - just as the A-10 to an e.g. MiG-17/19 - but it performed excellent towards bombers and ground targets. A Bf-110 couldn't fire an AIM-9 in defense nor attack - the A-10 could and can.

The A-7 was never intended as an interceptor nor fighter - but simply as a light ground attack capable aircraft - replacing the A-4 with a far higher payload, range performance and improved bombing accuracy - that could be additionally armed with e.g. AIM-9's to engage possible incoming enemy aircraft. (it wasn't supposed to hunt for enemy aircraft and engage them). It performed the same ground attack mission as a P-47 in WW2 - attacking in vast majority pre-designated targets - at least a P-47 had the guns, loiter and turn radius, to further engage missed ground targets or newly recognized ones - just as the A-10.

The P-47 was succeed by the A-1 Skyraider to fulfill that loitering ground attack mission, and the latter was replaced foremost by the A-7 that couldn't loiter and turn effectively over recognized moving targets, therefore replaced by the A-10 to additionally pound hardened targets and to coordinate on site CAS missions, executed by the other air assets such as the G-91, the F-4 or if available in Europe the A-7D.

Now if you would forward that e.g. Germany should have acquired the A-7D instead of embarking towards the meaningless Alpha-Jet, or procuring the G-91 right up to 1975, you would actually state something that makes sense.

Still not applicable.

It very much is - since it defies the faulty reasoning that speed was needed to take down other aircraft, e.g. a British bomber during a night raid. But that a slow bugger such as the Hs-129 and being a pure ground attack aircraft - foremost allocated towards ground armored targets - could just as well and even better perform as a bomber destroyer, then e.g. a Bf-109.

 

[Vrenn]

Since the Taliban didn't have an Air-force - what aircraft was the A-10 supposed to shoot down?

No, but the Iraqis did.
To War in a Warthog | Air & Space Forces Magazine
The slow-flying A-10 was never designed to go deep into enemy territory to seek out targets. Because its primary CAS mission was denied it for most of the conflict, interdiction made up the bulk of its sorties. Still, no military person would assert that every future conflict can be so well controlled. The A-10 is surely among the ugliest planes ever built, but, to a platoon of grunts cut off, pinned down, and taking losses, one of the most beautiful sights in the world is the approach of a pair of Warthogs with full ordnance and fuel for forty-five minutes on task. The most beautiful sight is six pairs.

The standard US & NATO fighter-aircraft ruled the sky over Iraq - what aircraft was the A-10 supposed to shoot down?
The same applied in regards to A-10 missions in Kosovo and Serbia.

You can't compare a A-7 mission of e.g. Vietnam with the mission spectrum that the A-10 was intended for towards the Warsaw-Pact.
Which was loitering and engaging as many "unknown" targets as possible - unlike an A-7 that simply dropped of it's bomb load on a predesignated coordinate - and not even knowing what it hit or if it had even succeeded in hitting anything - whilst flying straight back to home base.

A-7E

• Range: 1,070 nmi (1,231 mi, 1,981 km) maximum internal fuel
• Rate of climb: 15,000 ft/min (76.2 m/s)
• Armament
  
  • Guns: 1× M61A1 Vulcan 20 mm (0.79 in) rotary cannon with 1,030 rounds
  • Hardpoints:6× under-wing and 2× fuselage pylon stations (for mounting AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs only) with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) total capacity, with provisions to carry combinations of:
    • Rockets: 4× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× 127 mm (5.00 in) Zuni rockets)
    • Missiles:
      • 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile
      • 2× AGM-45 Shrike anti-radiation missile
      • 2× AGM-62 Walleye TV-guided glide bomb
      • 2× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missile
      • 2× AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile
      • 2× GBU-8 HOBOS electro-optically guided glide bomb
    • Bombs:
      • Up to 30× 500 lb (230 kg) Mark 82 bombs or Mark 80 series of unguided bombs (including 6.6 lb (3 kg) and 31 lb (14 kg) practice bombs)
      • Paveway series of laser-guided bombs
      • Up to 4× B28, B43, B57, B61 or B83 nuclear bombs
    • Other: up to 4 × 300 US gal (1,100 L; 250 imp gal), 330 US gal (1,200 L; 270 imp gal), or 370 US gal (1,400 L; 310 imp gal) drop tanks[nb 1]

The A-10 stole the A-7 blind for avionics and weapons used.
But the A-10 had only a 390 mile combat range. There is no CAS Coin stick around for the A-10. 3 passes and go home. That's only a 15 minute combat window. You are not going to harp about inflight refueling and I combat with, Tankers have a huge shortage and will be dispensed out to the most important missions and the A-10 doesn't come very high on that list. We lost a damned fine F-4E due to the lack of a tanker. I won't go into it much except there was a sky of real Heroes around that F-4E trying to get him home. The Tanker was about 5 minutes out when the bird crashed 2 miles before the runway.

The A-7 had loiter time with a combat range of over 1000 miles. He could reach anywhere in South East Asia with time to spare. You are just reading what makes sense to you while I am reliving history.

According to (those known) anticipated ammo/kill statistic fantasies of the US ARMY, the VC and NVA had already ceased to exist in 1969.
So obviously those e.g. A-7's didn't hit shit in regards to military valued targets - but mostly evaporated Vietnamese villages, paddy-fields and their civilians.

The NVA in 1969 existed. The only difference was our ground troops were now facing well equipped, well trained and numerous enemies. I don't know where you got your information but it is definately false. Take it from me. I was flying around in ACs in 1970 and 1971. And trust me, we were being shot at by the NVA while you believe it was done by a bunch of Campfire Girls throwing cookies.

Far more important; neither NATO nor the USA had the required ammo and $$$ to simply perform Vietnam like "drop and vanish" missions involving CAS, against the Warsaw Pact armored and semi-armored fielded numbers. How many tanks and armored vehicles did the NVA have?

Anti-aircraft weapons[edit]​

• ZPU-1/2/4 single, double, and quad 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns[355]
• ZU-23 twin 23 mm anti-aircraft cannon[356]
• M1939 37 mm anti-aircraft gun (and Chinese Type 55)[357][358]
• S-60 57 mm anti-aircraft gun[359][357]
• 85mm air defense gun M1944[356]
• 100 mm air defense gun KS-19[356]
• 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41[360]
• S-75 Dvina Soviet high-altitude air defence system[361][362]
• S-125 Neva Soviet high-altitude air defence system[363]

These were what we faced every day and night. Some of these things could be stationed in North Vietnam and reach into the DMZ, South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. And many of them were portable. Meaning that they were sent in during out CAS missions. That means that the A-7 faced them during an AF pickup of downed crewmen as well as the A-1E. After a certain time period, almost all aircrew retrievals were done in Enemy held territory where THEY had the bulk of the power. I am not saying how bad it was but we almost ran out of Pilots for the F-105s and then we ran out of F-105s. It was so bad that USAF was taking Bomber and Cargo Pilots and training them to fly the Nickel. The F-111B finally found a mission and resumed bombing.

In case no one told you -the US did not win the Vietnam war. And it wasn't due to the Hippies, but exorbitant $$$ sums needed to perform outdated and inefficient e.g. A-7 bombing runs, that in majority only contributed towards killing civilians and couldn't even destroy/harass effectively the infrastructure of the VC&NVA jungle trails - needless to say, to eliminate the NVA and it's hardware at affordable costs.

Actually, we did win the war. By late 1972, the North was soundly defeated. We could have invaded the north but the losses would have been too high. Sort of like invading Japan in 1945.

For the first time, in 1971 and 72, Nixon authorized the attacking of the Railroad coming out of China and the mining of Haiphong Harbor. They no longer could resupply their country for food and war supplies. Johnson always operated by worrying about making either Russia or China mad. Nixon decided enough was enough. For the first time, the bomb targets were opened to Hydoelectric, power plants and Factories.

The 1973 Paris Peace Accords was supposed to prevent the North from coming into the South. The US promised fuel, bullets and guns to the South in the advent the North invaded again. Meanwhile, in Cambodia, the North was building supplies up along with troops. The railroad was opened up to china and the harbor was cleaned up.

In 1975, the North attacked. The problem for the south was, they didn't have enough fuel for their armor, trucks and aircraft to even slow them down. The NVA sent a 550,000 man army into the South against a 1.3 million man south army. The problem was, the south had just enough guns to support 400,000 people and enough ammo for one mag each.

What didn't happen. Ford decided that it was too dangerous politically to send all those war supplies where the South could have defeated the invading north. I knew the South was lost when a captured F-5E attacked the Presidential Palace in Saigon. WE didn't lose, it was given away by the cowards in congress and Ford.

It very much is - independent of Goering's designation and dreams of the "heavy fighter" - the Bf-110 was a suitable ground attack aircraft and performed excellent in those missions just as in their assigned night-fighter role. Once the Bf-110 went into turns and climbs the speed and its maneuverability dropped drastically and therefore it wasn't any match towards a fighter-aircraft. More then 85% of aerial kills claimed by Bf-110 pilots were done on swift, low level direct passes towards airfields or low flying enemy aircraft that were caught unaware, and night-fighter missions, and not in some dogfights against fighters.

Therefore a Bf-110 (fighter) was no match at all towards a designated fighter aircraft - just as the A-10 to an e.g. MiG-17/19 - but it performed excellent towards bombers and ground targets. A Bf-110 couldn't fire an AIM-9 in defense nor attack - the A-10 could and can.

The A-7 was never intended as an interceptor nor fighter - but simply as a light ground attack capable aircraft - replacing the A-4 with a far higher payload, range performance and improved bombing accuracy - that could be additionally armed with e.g. AIM-9's to engage possible incoming enemy aircraft. (it wasn't supposed to hunt for enemy aircraft and engage them). It performed the same ground attack mission as a P-47 in WW2 - attacking in vast majority pre-designated targets - at least a P-47 had the guns, loiter and turn radius, to further engage missed ground targets or newly recognized ones - just as the A-10.

The P-47 was succeed by the A-1 Skyraider to fulfill that loitering ground attack mission, and the latter was replaced foremost by the A-7 that couldn't loiter and turn effectively over recognized moving targets, therefore replaced by the A-10 to additionally pound hardened targets and to coordinate on site CAS missions, executed by the other air assets such as the G-91, the F-4 or if available in Europe the A-7D.

When flying a CAS mission, you aren't turning and burning. You are heading straight in on the bad guy, hitting him hard, then extending and climbing hard and fast. The A-10 lacked the ability to do a decent extension and a hard climb. And all he had to present to the fight was about 3 strafes and 15 minutes. Meanwhile, the Mig-17, 19 and 21 would have torn it to pieces without the Topcap of the F-4Es. At least the A-7 could go head to head with a Mig-17 and pull it's own weight. And the missile you are so fond of had a less than 14% success rate.

Now if you would forward that e.g. Germany should have acquired the A-7D instead of embarking towards the meaningless Alpha-Jet, or procuring the G-91 right up to 1975, you would actually state something that makes sense.

It very much is - since it defies the faulty reasoning that speed was needed to take down other aircraft, e.g. a British bomber during a night raid. But that a slow bugger such as the Hs-129 and being a pure ground attack aircraft - foremost allocated towards ground armored targets - could just as well and even better perform as a bomber destroyer, then e.g. a Bf-109.

The reason the 110 was such a decent antibomber AC was the fact he was fast enough and carried enough firepower to get the job done. Much moreso than the 109. The problem was, it was only really affective at night. In fact, it was about the best night fighter of the war. During the Day, it stood out like a lightbulb and almost any fighter could bring it down. The other problem was, they made only 6000 of them. When the other AC on both sides were made in the tens of thousands, they could sustain the losses. The ME/BF109 was made by more than 33,000. The 110 attrition rate was way too high for its manufacturing numbers.

 

[Kruska]

The slow-flying A-10 was never designed to go deep into enemy territory to seek out targets.

That exactly what I am saying all the time - the mission parameters of a hit and run aircraft like the A-7 and a loitering - multiple attack capable front-line aircraft such as the A-10, aren't comparable.

The A-10 is surely among the ugliest planes ever built,

I don't share that view at all - I find the A-10 a great looking aircraft.

The NVA in 1969 existed.

That's what I had stated - however according to those anticipated Pentagon ammo/kill fantasy stats (all these dropped bombs on predesignated targets) by e.g. A-7's, down to artillery and small-arms fire (the latter foremost by thousands of Huey's) both the VC and NVA should have been wiped out by 1969 (according to those fantasy stats) - so obviously the desired/anticipated impact via direct "hit and run" strikes towards recognized enemy forces didn't happen at all - since the NVA still existed and so did the VC in the South.

And in order to be EFFICIENT in regards to COIN and CAS the A-10 came to birth. Especially in view of a potential enemy that fielded 20+ times as to what North-Vietnam had to offer in regards to armored vehicles, soft vehicles, AA defense systems and helicopters. !!

Actually, we did win the war. By late 1972, the North was soundly defeated. We could have invaded the north but the losses would have been too high. Sort of like invading Japan in 1945.

No, and any history-book will disagree with you. N-Vietnam didn't attack the USA - it was the other way around - and the USA pulled out of it's war, after 12 years and failed to keep the South independent - aka lost. The US aim/goal was not to just obliterate the North and the NVA - which obviously didn't happen anyway.

Latest since the Korean war - it had become obvious that the US, wasn't capable to win any large scale war without using nuclear weapons.
Due to $$$ needed to conduct a conventional war, and not being able to sell dead and crippled bodies to it's own population in regards to engaging in a foreign war - 9000 miles away.

Any other war the USA kicked off or got involved, was entirely directed towards absolute military underdogs - that simply had nothing with which, to seriously oppose the conventional might of the US Armed Forces. And the USA didn't win in Iraq, nor Afghanistan nor Syria. They only managed to wipe out known conventional forces - and upon getting into a Vietnam style guerrilla war - they decided to pull out.

.What didn't happen. Ford decided that it was too dangerous politically to send all those war supplies where the South could have defeated the invading north. I knew the South was lost when a captured F-5E attacked the Presidential Palace in Saigon. WE didn't lose, it was given away by the cowards in congress and Ford.

Nonsense - the South-Vietnamese Army was a corrupt, totally demotivated and absolutely inefficient force - primarily occupied with suppressing and extorting the own population. Kennedy and Johnson were absolutely aware about this - and decided (huge mistake) to send in the own US boys and assets. The USA is a democracy - and if losses (especially in a foreign war) outnumber the "freedom principle" the US population will go against it - and politicians in a democracy can't afford to lose votes - as simple as that.

The reason the 110 was such a decent antibomber AC was the fact he was fast enough and carried enough firepower to get the job done.

Speed was only required in the range of 300-360 km/h. (according to Luftwaffe night-fighter pilots) One of them was a good friend of my father - and both served in the same new Luftwaffe unit after WW2. - therefore I am quite familiar with the Luftwaffe Nachtjagd.

However (no surprise) you neglect the loitering time (the A-10 factor) - the by far most important factor, due to the Kammhuber-Line and it's cell system. The Brits unlike the USAAF did not engage into tight formation flights, - but send in their night-bombers individually like a pearl-string and from April 1942 onward as streams. The latter was enabled due to the introduction of the Gee radio navigation in 1942, allowing the RAF bombers to fly in by a common route.

As such the Luftwaffe night-fighters needed to loiter in their assigned cells. And an aircraft such as a ground attack dedicated He-129 could do this job just as well - despite it's far lower top-speed and range in comparison with a Bf-110.

I am in no way stating that the He-129 would have been a great or good night-fighter - but simply countering the argument that speed is supposedly everything, and that a slow aircraft won't be able to shoot down other aircraft. As for the A-10 it could knock out any Warsaw Pact helicopter and most transport aircraft. Armed with an AIM-9 it had the potential (depending on the situation) to even down a Mach 2 aircraft.

As for Vietnam - I fully understand that a Vietnam veteran - does not like to see his service being diminished. Especially not in view of strategic and tactical blunders, more or less solely caused by the Pentagon and US government.

I had served with the SADF from 1978 to 1983 -and we literally kicked the shit out of those Cubans, Soviets, East-Germans and their Negro commie vassals. Without us ever being anywhere near the military potential of the USA. We had to conserve ammo and make sure every bullet, missile, bomb, artillery shell or grenade counted. (Jesus - imagine we would have had 2500 Huey's) - just the amount you guys lost in Vietnam. Not to mention a hundred or even 50 A-10's.

Take a look onto a map to see the territorial size we occupied in e.g. Southern Angola and Northern Namibia, and fully controlled, in comparison with Vietnam. And hiding, camouflaging for guerrillas in the Bush and woodlands and villages of Angola and Mozambique is just as easy as in the Forrest-Jungle or Vietnam's Southern paddy-fields.

It was a pure political decision to abandon the Angolan southern part - additionally later clearing out of Namibia, that allowed SWAPO and it's Commie brethren to again take hold. As such I unfortunately can't deny that, (not the SADF), but that SA lost the war in regards to Angola and Namibia. A war that SA should never have gotten themselves into.

Okay, back to fighter-aircraft of the 70'ies

 

[Vrenn]

That exactly what I am saying all the time - the mission parameters of a hit and run aircraft like the A-7 and a loitering - multiple attack capable front-line aircraft such as the A-10, aren't comparable.

No, the A-10 never had the loitering time or the hit and run of the A-7E. Damn, do the math. If you won't, I will assume you are just trolling.

I don't share that view at all - I find the A-10 a great looking aircraft.

That's what I had stated - however according to those anticipated Pentagon ammo/kill fantasy stats (all these dropped bombs on predesignated targets) by e.g. A-7's, down to artillery and small-arms fire (the latter foremost by thousands of Huey's) both the VC and NVA should have been wiped out by 1969 (according to those fantasy stats) - so obviously the desired/anticipated impact via direct "hit and run" strikes towards recognized enemy forces didn't happen at all - since the NVA still existed and so did the VC in the South.

Sorry to bust your bugle but the VC was all but wiped out and the North had to intercede. The Tet Offensive pretty well wiped out any large centers of the VC.

And in order to be EFFICIENT in regards to COIN and CAS the A-10 came to birth. Especially in view of a potential enemy that fielded 20+ times as to what North-Vietnam had to offer in regards to armored vehicles, soft vehicles, AA defense systems and helicopters. !!

Tell that to the A-6, A-7, F-4, F-111, F-8 crews shot down while flying "Down Town". And don't forget the B-52s lost to Sams to all those imaginary weapons that North didn't have.

No, and any history-book will disagree with you. N-Vietnam didn't attack the USA - it was the other way around

You finally typed something that was the Truth and you have no idea why it happened.

- and the USA pulled out of it's war, after 12 years and failed to keep the South independent - aka lost. The US aim/goal was not to just obliterate the North and the NVA - which obviously didn't happen anyway.

Wrong, South Vietnam was part of SEATO (South East Asian
Treaty Organization)

Latest since the Korean war - it had become obvious that the US, wasn't capable to win any large scale war without using nuclear weapons.

The US was quite capable of winning. But it was micromanaged by President Johnson. Johnson once said that the controlled every bomb dropped in Vietnam. And he was correct. He was also accountable for thousands of needless deaths by not allowing the US Military fight it like they knew how. After he left office, Nixon allowed more of the US to fight and a good example of that was the two Linebackers that drove the North to the Peace Tables.

Due to $$$ needed to conduct a conventional war, and not being able to sell dead and crippled bodies to it's own population in regards to engaging in a foreign war - 9000 miles away.

That was could have been done and over with by 1968 had Johnson did what Nixon did.

Any other war the USA kicked off or got involved, was entirely directed towards absolute military underdogs - that simply had nothing with which, to seriously oppose the conventional might of the US Armed Forces. And the USA didn't win in Iraq, nor Afghanistan nor Syria. They only managed to wipe out known conventional forces - and upon getting into a Vietnam style guerrilla war - they decided to pull out.

I am wondering where you live at. And to think, people sometimes mislable me as a Leftie and then here you come along.

Nonsense - the South-Vietnamese Army was a corrupt, totally demotivated and absolutely inefficient force - primarily occupied with suppressing and extorting the own population. Kennedy and Johnson were absolutely aware about this - and decided (huge mistake) to send in the own US boys and assets. The USA is a democracy - and if losses (especially in a foreign war) outnumber the "freedom principle" the US population will go against it - and politicians in a democracy can't afford to lose votes - as simple as that.

Believe it or not, the beginning of the war was under Eisenhower who was the first to send in the "Advisors". Tell me where you are getting your information from. A cite is in order. My cite was "I was there"

Speed was only required in the range of 300-360 km/h. (according to Luftwaffe night-fighter pilots) One of them was a good friend of my father - and both served in the same new Luftwaffe unit after WW2. - therefore I am quite familiar with the Luftwaffe Nachtjagd.

However (no surprise) you neglect the loitering time (the A-10 factor) - the by far most important factor, due to the Kammhuber-Line and it's cell system. The Brits unlike the USAAF did not engage into tight formation flights, - but send in their night-bombers individually like a pearl-string and from April 1942 onward as streams. The latter was enabled due to the introduction of the Gee radio navigation in 1942, allowing the RAF bombers to fly in by a common route.

As such the Luftwaffe night-fighters needed to loiter in their assigned cells. And an aircraft such as a ground attack dedicated He-129 could do this job just as well - despite it's far lower top-speed and range in comparison with a Bf-110.

I am in no way stating that the He-129 would have been a great or good night-fighter - but simply countering the argument that speed is supposedly everything, and that a slow aircraft won't be able to shoot down other aircraft. As for the A-10 it could knock out any Warsaw Pact helicopter and most transport aircraft. Armed with an AIM-9 it had the potential (depending on the situation) to even down a Mach 2 aircraft.

Wow, see you had it in you to make sense and not make up history as you go.

As for Vietnam - I fully understand that a Vietnam veteran - does not like to see his service being diminished. Especially not in view of strategic and tactical blunders, more or less solely caused by the Pentagon and US government.

Not caused by the Pentagon. The Pentagon works for one person, the President of the United States. And Congress was too fearful to say or do anything. At one point, it would have cost them heavily in votes and support.

I had served with the SADF from 1978 to 1983 -and we literally kicked the shit out of those Cubans, Soviets, East-Germans and their Negro commie vassals. Without us ever being anywhere near the military potential of the USA. We had to conserve ammo and make sure every bullet, missile, bomb, artillery shell or grenade counted. (Jesus - imagine we would have had 2500 Huey's) - just the amount you guys lost in Vietnam. Not to mention a hundred or even 50 A-10's.

Take a look onto a map to see the territorial size we occupied in e.g. Southern Angola and Northern Namibia, and fully controlled, in comparison with Vietnam. And hiding, camouflaging for guerrillas in the Bush and woodlands and villages of Angola and Mozambique is just as easy as in the Forrest-Jungle or Vietnam's Southern paddy-fields.

It was a pure political decision to abandon the Angolan southern part - additionally later clearing out of Namibia, that allowed SWAPO and it's Commie brethren to again take hold. As such I unfortunately can't deny that, (not the SADF), but that SA lost the war in regards to Angola and Namibia. A war that SA should never have gotten themselves into.

Okay, back to fighter-aircraft of the 70'ies

Thank you for verifying your location. And the purpose of your misbegotten ideas. By today's standards, you would be listed as an insurgent. Terrorist. SADF was what was used to suppress other races down through military action sanctioned by the old South African Government that was abolished in 1991.

That being said, I place you in the same place I place all Terrorists both Foreign and Domestic. Say goodnight Gracie.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No, the A-10 never had the loitering time or the hit and run of the A-7E. Damn, do the math. If you won't, I will assume you are just trolling.



Sorry to bust your bugle but the VC was all but wiped out and the North had to intercede. The Tet Offensive pretty well wiped out any large centers of the VC.


Tell that to the A-6, A-7, F-4, F-111, F-8 crews shot down while flying "Down Town". And don't forget the B-52s lost to Sams to all those imaginary weapons that North didn't have.




You finally typed something that was the Truth and you have no idea why it happened.



Wrong, South Vietnam was part of SEATO (South East Asian
Treaty Organization)



The US was quite capable of winning. But it was micromanaged by President Johnson. Johnson once said that the controlled every bomb dropped in Vietnam. And he was correct. He was also accountable for thousands of needless deaths by not allowing the US Military fight it like they knew how. After he left office, Nixon allowed more of the US to fight and a good example of that was the two Linebackers that drove the North to the Peace Tables.




That was could have been done and over with by 1968 had Johnson did what Nixon did.





I am wondering where you live at. And to think, people sometimes mislable me as a Leftie and then here you come along.






Believe it or not, the beginning of the war was under Eisenhower who was the first to send in the "Advisors". Tell me where you are getting your information from. A cite is in order. My cite was "I was there"



Wow, see you had it in you to make sense and not make up history as you go.




Not caused by the Pentagon. The Pentagon works for one person, the President of the United States. And Congress was too fearful to say or do anything. At one point, it would have cost them heavily in votes and support.




Thank you for verifying your location. And the purpose of your misbegotten ideas. By today's standards, you would be listed as an insurgent. Terrorist. SADF was what was used to suppress other races down through military action sanctioned by the old South African Government that was abolished in 1991.

That being said, I place you in the same place I place all Terrorists both Foreign and Domestic. Say goodnight Gracie.

According to Macnamara a few years ago, Johnson never had any intention of winning in Vietnam. He wasted American lives trying to send a message and fight to a draw.

 

[Kruska]

Saab 37 Viggen​

My all-time favorite

Aside from the "revolutionary" F-16 that helped to define a new Fighter-Aircraft strategy and conception of the respective Air-forces composition and distribution of tasks from the 80'ies onward (One aircraft that could perform well in all missions) - the maybe most formidable Fighter-Aircraft of the 70'ies in that category "all-rounder" IMO, was the Saab 37 Viggen.

Especially in view of Germany and Europe being in the front-line of a cold-war scenario.

My father was amongst those Luftwaffe "evaluation" teams - inspecting and evaluating the Luftwaffe's new mainstream Fighter Aircraft procurement requirements - that ended up as well known, in the decision to introduce the F-104G. He had been assigned to the group that
was involved with the probable purchase of the Saab J35 Draken (an aircraft that sustained a 50 year service) and a cooperation with Saab's endeavors towards the Saab 37 Viggen.

I always wonder as to what the German or European aerospace-industry would look like today - had the Saab 37 Viggen been selected.

NATO's main concern towards the 60'ies and 70'ies in regards to it's air-assets, was the "survivability" of it's Airbases in the event of a Warsaw Pact first strike, and therefore the reaction speed and foremost the mission rate of it's own fighter aircraft and the evergrowing dominance of the Warsaw Pacts armored ground numbers. Alternatives to enhance the mission rate included the construction of traditional runways (too costly to follow up onto) and the usage of e.g. the Autobahn, meadows and the further construction of short runways added onto existing roads. Thus resulting into the development of Fighter-Aircraft as e.g. the British Harrier and the A-10.

The clever Swedes had developed their own concept to counter these threats.
The Saab 37 Viggen

It featured an extremely advanced aerodynamic configuration for its time, combining a main delta wing with delta-shaped canard fore-planes. This unconventional design enabled the Viggen to meet the Swedish Airforce requirement for speed of Mach 2+ at high altitude and the ability to operate from 500 m runways.

To keep the Saab 37 Viggen's landing distance short as well, Saab developed a thrust-reverser integrated with the rear fuselage, still the only one of its kind on a single-engined aircraft.

‘With the Viggen's three triangular metal “petals” in the engine exhaust could be folded down by the pilot pulling out a T-shaped lever on the left side of the dashboard in the cockpit. This would then direct the entire air stream from the engine forward through slits around the back of the fuselage. If the reversor was activated in flight, the system would become armed so that the reversor plates would automatically close as soon as the main and the nose undercarriages became compressed when touching the ground.

By pushing the throttle forward and adding power, the pilot could then get the aircraft to a surprisingly short stop. This was necessary due to the fact that the Viggen was designed to be able to operate from short makeshift runways, e.g. from car roads. Thanks to its unique thrust reverser the Saab 37 Viggen could land, come to a full stop, perform a Y-turn on the runway and take off in the opposite direction.

It was a very popular maneuver with the Saab 37 Viggen during air shows to land in front of the audience, come to a full stop, perform a Y-turn on the runway and take off in the opposite direction..

The initial planed/anticipated 800 units requirement set forth by the Swedish Airforce - but it's factual order-quantity of around 300 units - resulted into a hugely expensive Fighter-Aircraft.

Saab S37 Viggen

A single-seat, single-engine fighter with low double delta wing and with two canards equipped with flaps, it was intended to replace the Saab J35 Draken. Its first flight took place in 1967, and by…

plane-encyclopedia.com

Development work on the type was initiated at Saab in 1952 and, following the selection of a radical delta wing configuration, the resulting aircraft performed its first flight on 8 February 1967 and entered service in 21 June 1971. It was the first canard design produced in quantity. The Viggen was also the most advanced fighter jet in Europe until the introduction of the Panavia Tornado into operational service in 1981.

The basic platform was the AJ-37 strike fighter, to be followed by SF-37 aerial reconnaissance versions and the all-weather fighter-interceptor JA-37. In November 2005, the Viggen was retired from service by the Swedish Air Force, the only operator, having been replaced by the newer Saab JAS 39 Gripen.

The Viggen was intended to be a single pilot fighter, making the introduction of advanced avionics a requirement as there would be no navigator. As a result, the Viggen incorporated the CK 37 (Centralkalkylator) computer, the first airborne computer with integrated circuits, and that even remained in service with the Flygvapnet fleet of Viggens until the early years of the 21st century. During the development of the Viggen’s electronic components, operational aspects like vibration, exposure to strong forces and even crashes were considered, resulting in a very strong computer with a strong hardware capable of resisting crashes while keeping valuable information of the aircraft. It was also a very valuable computer for the Viggen, as it was able for assisting the pilot and aircraft missions and control of the aircraft.

Another important avionics element of the Viggen, working in tandem with the integrated computers, was the radar, an Ericsson PS-37 X radar. This radar was able to perform air-to-ground and air-to-air telemetry, search, track, terrain avoidance and cartography tasks. The further versions of the Viggen received enhanced avionics and electronic/digital components, enhancing their capabilities and mission performance.

 

[warthog2]

The most iconic Fighter-Aircraft in the 70'ies, to me was the A-10 Fairchild Republic Thunderbolt II.

Amen to that My fav jet A/C. I was stationed at D-M and lucky enough to see one in (non-combat) action and that beast of a gun blow up a shelter like it was made of paper mache. Such a great complementary A/C for CAS.

 

[Kruska]

The most noticeable and backbone fighter aircraft of the European NATO forces in the 70'ies was certainly the F-104

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter was developed for the US Air Force as a supersonic interceptor. Entering service in 1958, it was the USAF's first fighter capable of speeds in excess of Mach 2. Though the F-104 set a multitude of airspeed and altitude records, it suffered from reliability issues and possessed a poor safety record. Briefly used in the Vietnam War, the F-104 was largely ineffective and was withdrawn in 1967 from the USAF. The F-104 was widely exported and saw service with numerous other countries.

It all started with the XF-104

Since my father (a F-104G fanatic - in regards to an interceptor) has passed way - I am more free to forward my "critics" towards this aircraft.

It wasn't just a wrong choice for it's main user the Luftwaffe (almost 950 units) - but also proved to be largely ineffective for it's other buyers - especially with new aircraft alternatives such as the F-4 or the Saab-37, being just around the corner. Even existing aircraft at the time such as the Mirage III, the F-105B or the Saab 35 Draken, had a better overall performance spectrum.

Cold War Planes: The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter was developed in the 1950s as an interceptor for the US Air Force and was later exported widely.

www.thoughtco.com

A very matured and interesting alternative might very well have been the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger, where Grumman proposed a 10,500 lbf Rolls Royce Avon installation for the Luftwaffe instead of the J79. The Super Tiger outperformed the Saab Draken, F-104 and the Mirage III in a tender to equip the Swiss Air Force.

Germany aka the Luftwaffe faced the additional problem of having tried to convert a pure interceptor into a multi-role fighter aircraft. hence the avionics had to be redesigned/developed and the engine proved to be the main obstacle during operations - resulting into numerous losses - this giving the F-104G it's by-name Widow Maker. Though in all fairness - the Republic F-84F Thunderstreak flown by the Luftwaffe had an even more dismal crash record then the F-104G.

Germany's defense minister at the time was a fervent supporter of nuclear strike capabilities - but also faced with a 'limited" budget - thus wanting a Mach2 capable aircraft to perform the roles of - interceptor towards USSR nuke carrying aircraft (the most important aspect) later the "reaction-time" issue being thought to be even further improved via projects such as ZELL. Additionally the aircraft needed to be able to fulfill the strike role of the parting F-84, and towards reconnaissance. Another far more crucial role was added, when it was intended to bring it into naval service as well - replacing e.g. the Hawker Sea Hawk Mk 100.

All these "requirements" and the existing shortage of well trained Luftwaffe pilots - and well as well trained and equipped maintenance crews - added to make the F-104G, rather a disappointment then an effective NATO backbone asset.

ZELL

An F-104G flown or photographed by my father.

 

[warthog2]

The most noticeable and backbone fighter aircraft of the European NATO forces in the 70'ies was certainly the F-104

So...although it suffered from reliability issues and possessed a poor safety record and was largely ineffective in the Vietnam War, it was the most noticeable and backbone fighter aircraft of the European NATO forces in the 70s? ?? Good thing Europe had the US to fall back on then.

 

[Kruska]

So...although it suffered from reliability issues and possessed a poor safety record and was largely ineffective in the Vietnam War, it was the most noticeable and backbone fighter aircraft of the European NATO forces in the 70s? ?? Good thing Europe had the US to fall back on then.

Yes, the F-104G was undoubtedly the most noticeable and backbone fighter aircraft of the European NATO - forces in the 70'ies.

The question would be - what other aircraft might have proven to be a far better choice. Taking the factual "availability" of an alternative into account, in the time-frame - 1956-58, were the Luftwaffe made it's choice and such caused the other NATO countries to get into the F-104G from the 60'ies onward.

The only alternatives that spring into my mind could have been the Republic F-105, Dassault Mirage III and the Saab Draken - as for the F11F-1F Super Tiger - I wouldn't know too much about it's feasibility. Personally the Saab J35 Draken would have been my choice. It could have set theee milestone for the European aerospace industry - and would automatically have led to the Saab J37 Viggen and so on.

Saab J35 Draken

Saab J35 Draken (Dragon / Kite)

Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the Saab J35 Draken (Dragon / Kite) including pictures.

www.militaryfactory.com

Saab 35 Draken

A single-seat, single-engine interceptor/fighter for all-weather conditions, with low double delta wings, the Saab 35 Draken was developed in order to replace the Saab J29 Tunnan and the Saab J32 L…

plane-encyclopedia.com

A single-seat, single-engine interceptor/fighter for all-weather conditions, with low double delta wings, the Saab 35 Draken was developed in order to replace the Saab J29 Tunnan and the Saab J32 Lansen. Its first flight took place in 1955, being amongst the most advanced and remarkable fighters of its time. In 1960 it entered in service with the Flygvapnet.

The Draken is also a product of the needs from a neutral nation willing to keep its neutrality, and geographically placed between the two block. This reason explains the requirements, but especially its high climbing rate capabilities, so to be able to engage high-altitude bombers and fighters – namely Soviet Union bombers and fighters. It also explains the need for STOL capacities, as the Flygvapnet was implementing a system of dispersed bases, asking for highways and roads to be used as airstrips from where the aircraft could be operating, and also to reduce damage and increase survival in case of attack.

Its very unique and remarkable double-delta wing design is also explained by the technical abovementioned requirements, which gave the aircraft very good high and low speed performances. This design made the Draken capable of executing the “Cobra” manoeuvre, and also to stand well against more recent designs, as air exercises in Austria evidenced. During development it was able to unintendedly exceed Mach 1 on its first afterburner flight. It could also sustain a force of 10G turning force. And it also had a safety feature, with the introduction of a ram turbine, placed under the nose, to provide emergency power.

Despite being conceptualized as an interceptor, it performed well in dogfights and was able to undertake ground attack, training, and reconnaissance missions as well. And it proved to be a very tough and resistant design, as it is among the few jet fighter designs to be in service for 50 years. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and US National Test Pilot School were the operators of the Draken.


The design was so unique that, in fact, the Draken was studied for the design and development of the F16XL experimental prototype.


Between 600 and 650 Draken were built, serving with the Flygvapnet until 1998, with the Finnish air force until the year 2000, the Danish air force until 1993, and the Austrian air force until 2005. The Draken also flew with the Flygvapnet ‘Acro Delta’ acrobatic team.

 

[Vrenn]

So...although it suffered from reliability issues and possessed a poor safety record and was largely ineffective in the Vietnam War, it was the most noticeable and backbone fighter aircraft of the European NATO forces in the 70s? ?? Good thing Europe had the US to fall back on then.

The purpose of the F-104A was to generate fast, take off fast, get up high and intercept and kill the bombers or the fighter/bombers. Even today, there is no fighter as capable in this mission. While the US has miles and miles to intercept any target, Europe has feet and not miles for interception. The Germans tried to change the Lightning's profile and failed. The Italians used the F-104A as interceptors while Germany tried to use them as bombers.

 

[Kruska]

The purpose of the F-104A was to generate fast, take off fast, get up high and intercept and kill the bombers or the fighter/bombers. Even today, there is no fighter as capable in this mission. While the US has miles and miles to intercept any target, Europe has feet and not miles for interception. The Germans tried to change the Lightning's profile and failed. The Italians used the F-104A as interceptors while Germany tried to use them as bombers.

It wasn't the Germans that changed the F-104 - but their demands, which led Lockheed to design an aircraft (F-104G) "Super Starfighter" that couldn't deliver upon it's promise. Unlike the e.g. Saab 35 Draken, F-105 or maybe the Mirage III.

As for the BAC Lightning - I never came across a "serious" report in regards to the Luftwaffe even being willing to consider it. Especially in view of lacking the "demanded" nuke and ground attack capability and endurance. IIRC it was the first aircraft to drop out of the competition.
Would you have a source for that? - thanks.

 

[Dayton3]

It wasn't the Germans that changed the F-104 - but their demands, which led Lockheed to design an aircraft (F-104G) "Super Starfighter" that couldn't deliver upon it's promise. Unlike the e.g. Saab 35 Draken, F-105 or maybe the Mirage III.

As for the BAC Lightning - I never came across a "serious" report in regards to the Luftwaffe even being willing to consider it. Especially in view of lacking the "demanded" nuke and ground attack capability and endurance. IIRC it was the first aircraft to drop out of the competition.
Would you have a source for that? - thanks.

IIRC extreme high speeds for fighters (above Mach 2.5) had to be abandoned due to the drag from bubble canopies.

 

[Kruska]

IIRC extreme high speeds for fighters (above Mach 2.5) had to be abandoned due to the drag from bubble canopies.

Yes, and due to the continuous and rapid advances in regards to air-to-air and ground to air missiles, an e.g. Mach 2.5 capability also became more or less irrelevant.

 

[Vrenn]

Yes, and due to the continuous and rapid advances in regards to air-to-air and ground to air missiles, an e.g. Mach 2.5 capability also became more or less irrelevant.

There is also more than the bubble canopy. When you exceed Mach 2.5 your whole ac heats up. The F-104S was rated at Mach 2.2+. Note the plus sign. When the A was reengined it also was rated at 2.2+. The reengined A models speed was "Classified". The + sign was a poor statement., NASA is still flying one of those reengined fighters.

The limiting factor on the F-104 wasn't the canopy, it was the leading edges. It went so fast that the leading edge would glow a bright red. When that occurred, the fighter had to back out of it. When Nasa did a speed run on the nickel, the F-104 was circling overhead filming the run. The Nickel topped out at about Mach 2.1. That means the lightning had to be well above mach 2.4. The J79-GE-19 had a thrust of over 17,000 lbs in a fighter that weighed just over 14,000 lbs. That places the reengined F-104 at over a 1.2 to one rate. just below the F-15. There is a good reason it was chosen to train astronauts at a sustained height of 103,000 feet. It was the only bird that could do that short of the X-15. The reengined A was the lightest. But we don't list it's performance. Instead, we list the performance of the G model which was a pig in comparison and the slowest and the lowest overall performance with the exception of the payload capacity since it had more wing area added.

I don't see that the most limiting factor is the bubble canopy since the F-15 is capable of exceeding well over mach 2.8 if the pilot decides that he needs that kind of speed. Of course, V-Max means that he's going to cook an engine and have parts fall off. The Mig-31 is actually slower than the Eagle. While it may be able to hit Mach 2.8, it's going to be cooking parts. The F-15 and F-104 rewrites all the laws.