Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: kamilyun on January 08, 2007, 12:34:11 AM
-
So I know after WW2 the US started going with F designation for fighters instead of P for pursuit and continued to take the #'s higher and higher:
F-86, F-100, F-111, etc.
Why and when did the US start back with the lower #'s? F-4 Phantom, F-14, 15, 16 etc...
Did they just start over and fill in the #'s of non-operational planes? Why then go back to the F-117?
Also, the F-4 Phantom was in service by 1960. However, the specifications which led to the F-111 program were only outlined by the government in 1960. Different services switch at different times?
Thanks in advance :)
-
F4 was originally the F-110 with the AF if memory serves. I think it had more to do with the MacNamara idea of a multirole aircraft for all services that got in the way.
F4 being the main one to do this since all services used it. I think the F14, 15, 16, 17/18 stuff all was for this same reason as they had fly offs to see which was best.
naturally the AF took the 15 and 16 while the USN took the 14 and 18 :)
-
And oddly enough, we also have the F-117A Stealth fighter, which is actually an attack plane that can't really dog fight, but can only defend itself by stealth and counter measures for the most part. It is a cool little plane, but an A-10 is as much a fighter as it is. I'm sure the F-117 designation is the way the AF denotes it really isn't a fighter, but rather an attack plane. The AF doesn't like attack planes really, that's why they want rid of the A-10, it isn't a fighter, and it is old school low tech stick and rudder. It is also the only plane suited for its task.
-
My dad mentioned to me once that they should transfer aircraft like the A-10 over to the Army for their use, similar to how the Army operates their own attack helicopters independently of the USAF. That way the Air Force can have their over-built computerized toys, and the Army can keep its low-tech dependable ground-pounder that can do the jobs the F-16 can't.
-
Army and Marine Tankers say the same thing Sax. (Former-19K here :) )
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
Why and when did the US start back with the lower #'s? F-4 Phantom, F-14, 15, 16 etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system
-
Thanks. I had tried Googling it, but hadn't used the right keywords apparently.
Amazing how much the services have just continued to ignore the "standard" numbering system. There's more text on exceptions than the actual system in that Wiki article.
And the F-35 was just apparently an on the fly designation when it should have been F-24!
-
There was a lot of confusion in the sixties because of the transition. The McDonnell F-4 Phantom II was originally the F4H following the F3H Demon, F2H Banshee and FH Phantom. It was sort of caught in the transition period so retained the -4. Same thing happened with the F-8 which was originally the F8U and the Grumman F11F became the F-11A and numerous others before things really settled out starting with the F-14, which, BTW should have been the F-13 but who would have wanted that?
The F-111 designation is a result of the USAF's unfortunate predilection for naming bombers "fighters" and the number fit in with the century series of fighters. This almost became a major disaster for the Navy when MacNamara, himself unable to tell the difference between a fighter and a bomber, tried to foist off this USAF "Fighter" on the Navy. Maybe this should have been the F-13 as it seems somewhat appropriate.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Army and Marine Tankers say the same thing Sax. (Former-19K here :) )
Marines cringe when they see A-10's.
-
Only those who can't forgive what happened in Desert Storm. Happened to the Army too, Air Force apparently can't tell the difference between an M1 and a T-70 to save our lives...
Which is another reason they should let the Army have them, especially considering they don't want them anyway. Marines have got it right, their pilots train right alongside the ground forces so they know exactly who and what they're protecting on CAS missions, same thing with the Army attack choppers. For the AF, protecting the Mud Bugs is a distant 3rd or 4th in priorities.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Only those who can't forgive what happened in Desert Storm.
Desert Storm hell! Marines still get after us Navy guys about WWII.
-
Mace, Marines give sailors a hard time out of pure principle...:aok
-
"I love all you Navy boys- everytime we have to go someplace to fight, you're always willing to give us a ride." :D
-
According to my sister (a....6-month Navy "veteran" with a medical discharge before she even got out of Basic) the Marines look to give female sailors a hard time of a different sort.
-
Give the A-10s to the Marines. Only the Marines. They know its their brothers down there. They've been down there. They make damn sure they do it right and save lives instead of losing them. That's the reason why ground troops prefered Marine air support over Navy and Air Force.
With such a reputation, give them the proper tool and the responsibility to do it across-the-board. My humble opinion.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Only those who can't forgive what happened in Desert Storm. Happened to the Army too, Air Force apparently can't tell the difference between an M1 and a T-70 to save our lives...
Which is another reason they should let the Army have them, especially considering they don't want them anyway. Marines have got it right, their pilots train right alongside the ground forces so they know exactly who and what they're protecting on CAS missions, same thing with the Army attack choppers. For the AF, protecting the Mud Bugs is a distant 3rd or 4th in priorities.
they can't tell the diffrence between a Brit scorpian and a T70 . and the scorpian has only a 30mm automatic cannon.??
-
"Scorpion"
"Venn ze British fire, ve duck. Venn ve fire back, zey duck. Venn ze Americans fire, everybody ducks..."
There was a similar incident in the first Gulf war, involving a Warrior APC, which still hits a nerve in British today, not least because it plays to the above stereotype.
ON THE OTHER HAND this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5371392.stm) news story from September suggests that it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll:
"The RAF are "utterly, utterly useless" in protecting troops on the ground in Afghanistan, a major with the main UK battle group says in a leaked e-mail.
...
(description of poor performance by RAF Harrier pilot, or perhaps inadequate targeting system)
...
Other Parachute Regiment officers had told him they prefer to call in American A-10 Tankbusters for air support when under fire because of what they see as the RAF's ineffectiveness, he added."
It's a mark of progress that the average A-10 carries a greater bombload than a B-24 in Aces High plus it has the 30mm cannon as well and goes faster. And yet the world still has wars. Cue discussion of relative worth of Harrier and A-10.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And oddly enough, we also have the F-117A Stealth fighter, which is actually an attack plane that can't really dog fight, but can only defend itself by stealth and counter measures for the most part. It is a cool little plane, but an A-10 is as much a fighter as it is. I'm sure the F-117 designation is the way the AF denotes it really isn't a fighter, but rather an attack plane. The AF doesn't like attack planes really, that's why they want rid of the A-10, it isn't a fighter, and it is old school low tech stick and rudder. It is also the only plane suited for its task.
Alot of the USAF designations are political BS..perfect example was
renaming the B-26 Invader to the A-26K so we wouldn't have any bombers
in Vietnam at the time.
It's not that the AF doesn't like attackers..the A-7 and A-10 being good
examples, it's just now the fad is "multi-role" aircraft. Let's face it, the vast
majority of AF missions these days are air-mud.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
My dad mentioned to me once that they should transfer aircraft like the A-10 over to the Army for their use, similar to how the Army operates their own attack helicopters independently of the USAF. That way the Air Force can have their over-built computerized toys, and the Army can keep its low-tech dependable ground-pounder that can do the jobs the F-16 can't.
So then the Army can transfer all their unwanted M1A2s to the Air Force
for base defence and we can scrap all the different services altogether :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Apeking
"Scorpion"
"Venn ze British fire, ve duck. Venn ve fire back, zey duck. Venn ze Americans fire, everybody ducks..."
There was a similar incident in the first Gulf war, involving a Warrior APC, which still hits a nerve in British today, not least because it plays to the above stereotype.
ON THE OTHER HAND this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5371392.stm) news story from September suggests that it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll:
"The RAF are "utterly, utterly useless" in protecting troops on the ground in Afghanistan, a major with the main UK battle group says in a leaked e-mail.
...
(description of poor performance by RAF Harrier pilot, or perhaps inadequate targeting system)
...
Other Parachute Regiment officers had told him they prefer to call in American A-10 Tankbusters for air support when under fire because of what they see as the RAF's ineffectiveness, he added."
It's a mark of progress that the average A-10 carries a greater bombload than a B-24 in Aces High plus it has the 30mm cannon as well and goes faster. And yet the world still has wars. Cue discussion of relative worth of Harrier and A-10.
Anecdotes like this are pretty meaningless. To those in the air the ground troops keep braying for more and more and to those on the ground they always think they're being ignored and getting no support. Where you sit determines what you see and your weapon system determines how accurately you can drop. Most of these complaints have little basis in fact or realistic expectations. Blame the fighter for not dropping on a target that you call in. Why didn't he drop? Probably because he can't positively identify it and can't be sure he isn't dropping on you (or another friendly). The guy finaly does drop on a few specks on the ground and they turn out to be friendlies then it's his fault, everyone seems to forget all the problems of identifying targets and the pressure (and desire) to provide the support the troops need. There's an outstanding HUD video from Desert Storm where an Apache is called in by the ground trooops. After numerous questions from the aircrew and numerous confirmation from the troops that the targets were bad guys he fires and wipes an armored vehicle out. No sooner did the target go up then the ground troops come up and say it was a friendly, the pilot says something to the effect of "don't you tell me that, don't you say that now." Guess who gets the blame, and the reputation? The stuff about A-10's being called in has far more to do with the airplane than whether it's an American or British pilot. The A-10 is designed specifically for CAS and it's slow, low, and turns tight. This lets the pilot get much closer and, since the plane is tough both get a better ID of the target and survive. Trying to do CAS with a highspeed fighter like an F-16 or even a Harrier is a different proposition and an order of magnitude harder. Last, there are very big differences between training levels and experience. You get some Major on his third tour in the theater vs some 1st Lt on his first. Doesn't matter if they're American or Brit.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Trying to do CAS with a highspeed fighter like an F-16 or even a Harrier is a different proposition and an order of magnitude harder. Last, there are very big differences between training levels and experience. You get some Major on his third tour in the theater vs some 1st Lt on his first. Doesn't matter if they're American or Brit.
I've watched every current tactical U.S. platform drop bombs on stuff, and personally, I'd rather have a U.S. Marine Harrier drop them than any other platform. Sure, they don't have the load of anything, but they're the fastest plane on and off the target. A-10's are slow on and off. In a high threat environment, they'll need all that armor they have to fly home with the AAA and SA's stuck in 'em. Harriers are small, hard to see on ingress, and pretty much always hit their mark. Just got to hustle 'cause they typically don't have much gas. I even tried tracking AV8's with Stinger sims and its a tough nut to crack--almost always a low prob revenge shot. I suppose you could make the same argument for the F-18 as well, as those guys are pretty dang good, but they are easier to see and egress off the target a little slower. A-10's are too easy to see and too slow to avoid. Just my two cents...
Caveat: I'm talking iron bombs and conventional drops. Throw JDAM or other guided weapons in and the discussion is moot.
-
i think the gulf war incident was more about pilots not being familiar with freindly equipment.
i have deep respect for any pilot . it's a hard job. Brit equipment though is dire thanks to over reliance on US technology and supplies.
I'd rather have an A10 cover me than anthing else. Just so long as the pilot knows where I am and it's his call not a general in a comfy chair.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Only those who can't forgive what happened in Desert Storm. Happened to the Army too, Air Force apparently can't tell the difference between an M1 and a T-70 to save our lives...
Which is another reason they should let the Army have them, especially considering they don't want them anyway. Marines have got it right, their pilots train right alongside the ground forces so they know exactly who and what they're protecting on CAS missions, same thing with the Army attack choppers. For the AF, protecting the Mud Bugs is a distant 3rd or 4th in priorities.
Apparently your anti-USAF rant ignored the Apache unit commander who
fired on an LAV in a FF incident during Desert Storm. One of your more
uninformed posts btw.
-
The Pursuit designation was only used by the Army
Air Forces. The Navy used a different designation based upon letters
designating their different missions with F meaning fighter. From a book
called U.S. Fighters, "In 1962 the Defense Department took a step to
eliminate the conflicting designations by the Air Force and Navy when
referring to the same aircraft. The Air Force, upon acquiring the McDonnell
Phantom II, identified it as the F-110A, while to the Navy it was the F4H-1.
Under the 1962 system, the Phantom II became the F-4, a single letter after
the "-4" denoting which version." That numbering system continues today.
Experimental and production aircraft continued to receive sequential numbers
using this system. However, the Air Force continued to use the old system
for some special classified aircraft. For example, the Air Force received
some Soviet aircraft and gave them a "cover" designation using the old
system to try to hide their true identity. Since the F-117 was in the
classified arena for a long time, the Air Force again used the old system so
that no one would question why a number was skipped under the new system.
-
all your answers are belong there---> http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Elevon/baugher_us/