Is there a reason why the Soviets never built an aircraft as versatile as the F-4?
>>28051282
They didn't mind building a bunch of aircraft that were good at something than an aircraft that was okay at everything.
>>28051282
Su-24?
>>28051405
>>28051282
Maybe because they wanted good planes for different roles rather than have one ehhh plane for "all" roles.
>>28051650
>>28051340
Explain to me what reasoning you niggers are using to deduce that because one airframe is able to fill multiple mission roles, that it suddenly performs poorly.
>>28051679
Okay is not "poorly" you illiterate autist. Its adequate.
An F4 will not do CAS as effectively as a Skyraider or Spooky, but it will do it adequately
An F4 will not do bombing as effectively as a B52, but it will do it adequately
An F4 will not do Observation as effectively as a Mohawk or Bronco, but it will do it adequately
An F4 will not do fighter shit as effectively as a Crusader or Delta Dagger, but it will do it adequately
Its adequate, not bad. FFS learn to read.
>>28051760
Again, you haven't explained why because an airframe can fill multiple mission roles, that its performance magically drops.
Also, the Phantom would shit on a skyraider for CAS. Yet, the Skyraider is a specialized CAS aircraft! holy shit look at that your line of thinking now makes zero fuckin sense
stop associating utility with loss of performance in X aspect, you fucking mong
>>28051650
are you a dumb nigger or what ?
where this shitty meme f-4 is bad came from ?
a fucking f-4 is one of the most successful aircraft usa designed
excelled in every role it was pushed in
frames double its life expectancy
its still in service and still is successfully upgraded
its still fights in war games and still kicks aircraft ass that are 2 gens above and 50 years newer
go eat a dick, f-4 kicks ass
>>28051679
Common sense. And "Okay" is not "Poorly"
An aircraft built for speed and as an interceptor isn't going to be good at loitering at low speed and it isn't going to have natively the avionics suite necessary for performing ground attack jobs, nor the resilience to eat AAA and get back home if necessary.
>>28051800
Think of it like this: would a station wagon be as fast and fun to drive as a sportscar if you dump a lot of money on it? Quite. But would it be the same, and be as practical as a stock station wagon for carrying people and grocery? No.
If you need this explained to you then you're... stupid. Not much else to say.
>>28051874
>Common sense. And "Okay" is not "Poorly"
if it were common sense the Skyraider would have been superior for CAS but that was objectively not the case.
>okay
still implies a loss in performance that came from nowhere simply because it can do other things
I want answers on why planes just throw some performance out the window when it happens to be capable of doing other missions
>>28051800
>Phantom would shit on a skyraider for CAS. Yet, the Skyraider is a specialized CAS aircraft!
The skyraider has a far better loiter time and is more suited to ground attack with its guns and lower speed, since nobody strafes at 500mph. Longer range too, the F4 needs multiple drop tanks to even come close.
>>28051914
>still implies a loss in performance that came from nowhere simply because it can do other things
You are literally projecting that notion onto everyone else.
>I want answers on why planes just throw some performance out the window when it happens to be capable of doing other missions
A Humvee is a multi-role vehicle. It does not lose performance if you put an M2 on the roof and use it for patrolling, but there are vehicles better suited to the role on account of being specifically built for said role.
>>28051914
>but that was objectively not the case.
Except it is. The Skyraider was good for CAS, the F-4 could peform adequately in strike missions.
Not CAS.
>still implies a loss in performance that came from nowhere simply because it can do other things
It's a loss of effectiveness because it has to take compromises.
Again, you can't race a station wagon and expect it to be a good grocery getter, or as good as a purebred racecar.
>I want answers on why planes just throw some performance out the window when it happens to be capable of doing other missions
Use your common fucking sense. Same reason as to why the Navy needs purpose built/modified aircraft with heavier airframes and you can't just throw a hook on something and call it "navalized".
>>28051960
>The skyraider has a far better loiter time and is more suited to ground attack with its guns and lower speed, since nobody strafes at 500mph. Longer range too, the F4 needs multiple drop tanks to even come close.
>far better loiter
nope
>low n slow
is not a good thing, welcome to 2015
>longer range too
>the F-4 needs drop tanks to even come close
mfw the F-4 has a longer ferry range and the skyraider only beats out the phantom's combat radius by 100 nm via drop tanks and by carrying almost no ordnance
sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.
shockerrr
>>28051679
>HEY GUISE WHY WE NOT USE STRIKE EAGLE FOR AIR TO AIR ROLES AND GET RID OF THE F-15C? SINCE ITS THE SAME PLANE I'M SURE ALL THE ADDED WEIGHT FOR AIR TO GROUND EFFECTIVENESS ISN'T A PROBLEM AT ALL
>but anon all the added weight and different role focus do make a difference!
>YOU'RE NOT EXPLAINING IT TO MEEEE
This is you.
Think about how stupid you sound.
>>28052041
>welcome to 2015
>talking about an aircraft built in 1945
?????
>>28052162
but the skyraider was a dedicated airframe and the phantom was a filthy multi role, so clearly the skyraider was better
That's how stupid you sound; >>28052050
>>28052186
>filthy multi role
Why do you sound so bitter and upset that an unspecialized vehicle is outperformed by specialized vehicles in their specific intended role? Nobody ITT has shat on the F-4 at all, but your acting like its some kind of persecuted minority because its not the be-all and end-all of aircraft design in all roles ever. grow the fuck up.
>>28052236
>an unspecialized vehicle is outperformed by specialized vehicles in their specific intended role?
Lancer says hello kek
strategic bombers, being better at CAS than CAS aircraft since the 90s.
>>28052236
Because sometimes they aren't, and people who insist that they are because 'it's common sense' are why we can't have nice things.
>>28051282
Soviet doctrine never really called for anything like it.
You have to remember that the Soviets were heavily reliant on ground-control and were overall a lot more defensively oriented with their air force. When the pilot's pretty much only in the plane to be vectored to the target by ground control, a high degree of autonomy (and the long ranges and high payloads that come with it) isn't as important.
The Phantom only became a success because the airframe required for the fleet-defense interceptor it was supposed to be happened to give it excellent performance and an impressive payload. The PVO had superficially similar requirements for long-range interceptors to cover Siberia, but with little concern for dealing with enemy fighters their long-range interceptors were hardly practical as a multirole (see the Tu-128 and La-250).
The MiG-23 would somewhat become a multirole, but in the end Soviet doctrine diverged too much to allow it to take on roles as diverse as the Phantom. Particularly, VVS SEAD doctrine called for the use of heavy standoff munitions too large for most Soviet fighters to carry, whereas you can slap a HARM on just about anything in the USAF inventory.
>>28052344
>whereas you can slap a HARM on just about anything in the USAF inventory.
don't forget the -50 to your core stats when you do this
>>28052236
To be fair, the Phantom was better than just about everything else in service when it came around.
It was a better strike aircraft than the F-105 and F-100, better interceptor than the F-104 and F-106, and better recce platform than the F-101. Although the F-106 was arguably the better dogfighter, a single Phantom carried four times the missiles - all of which were better than the AIM-4s the Delta Dart carried.
The only real downside the Phantom had was that it wasn't necessarily the cheapest bomber, which is why we got the A-6 and A-7.
>>28052236
Because sometimes a specialization becomes unnecessary. There used to be specialized fighters for flying at night, predictably called "Night Fighters." Now, every fighter is expected to be able to function very well at night. So there is no need for a specialized fighter.
>>28051760
>An F4 will not do fighter shit as effectively as a Crusader or Delta Dagger, but it will do it adequately
A Phantom would blow either of those out of the water. The Phantom carried more missiles than both of them and had the advantage of carrying radar-guided AIM-7s in addition to the short-ranged Sidewinders. It was faster than the Crusader and had a superior thrust-weight ratio to both. It was by all means a superior fighter to the ones it replaced.
>>28051679
>>28051845
>Mfw I wasn't even baiting
>And you illiterate fucks managed to bait yourselves
B R A V O
R
A
V
O
>>28052467
A lot of it has to do with the improvement of electronics. It used to be that the equipment for night/all weather operations was so bulky that you're significantly compromising performance in other roles by mounting it. Now, that's not the case. Not only have electronics significantly improved, but doctrine and weapons have changed to make multiroles preferable.
>>28052479
>A Phantom would blow either of those out of the water.
NASA crusader jets beat Navy Phantoms pretty regularly in drills, actually. The Crusader was a better fighter, but the Phantom was a better fit for what the Navy wanted.
>>28052534
That's the super crusader you're talking about
>>28052534
You're thinking of the Super Crusader, not the Crusader.
Even then, isolated incidents with expert NASA pilots engaging unwilling Navy pilots hardly proves anything.
>>28052299
>oh my god the B-1 bombed ISIS and Durkas so it must be the most awesome thing ever for CAS
s t o p
Hhh
>>28052600
B-1s have been providing the majority of CAS for a while now, retard.
It's supersonic which is even better, it's like a flying fuck you to retards that insist specialization >>>>
>>28052600
The B1 is the best CAS plane, though.
It flew more CAS missions than any other plane in Afghanistan. It has god-tier loiter time, it can carry a gargantuan amount of ordinance, and it can use a wide variety of ordinance. It's the perfect high-altitude CAS plane, and because it was designed for low-altitude penetration bombing it could potentially perform low altitude bombing runs as well if it were ever needed.
>>28052644
>b-but muh gun runs
>>28052644
But has it a Gau-8 A Avenger Gatling cannon?
Yeah that's what I thought. Next please.
>>28052845
>gun runs
>relevant for anything but the lowest-intensity COIN
>>28052845
>Anti-Tank gun that can't penetrate tanks
>>28052479
In a distance fight with missiles, the Phantom is far superior. But when it comes down to a close-range dogfight, the Phantom couldn't turn. Thrust to weight ratios and speed aren't everything, especially when it came to these close-range fights.
>>28053088
>the Phantom couldn't turn
you say this why?
>>28053120
The Phantom was very fast especially for the time it was introduced. Not many planes could reach Mach 2.3 in 1960. The tradeoff is that it didn't turn so good. Future US fighters would put a much higher emphasis on maneuverability.
>>28053120
Because I listen to an old Phantom pilot every day talk about his experience, including this morning. They transition to the vertical in cases of close-range fights to take advantage of the opponent's inferior thrust/weight ratio. If you don't believe me, listen to the stories of the Phantom pilots in Vietnam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLVAYnM7pwY
>>28053153
It turned perfectly fine, as seen by Naval phantoms being more effective than the gunned USAF counterparts
>>28052479
Don't forget lockdown-shootdown capability on later models which was a substantial boost in air combat ability.
>>28053153
lol I actually listened to him talk about training fights against F-16s today. By that time he was flying the AV-8A, and it was pretty much a hopeless fight unless short/medium range missiles were involved.
>>28053199
I was talking more about the situation when the Phantom was introduced. Comparing to a late model Phantom isn't exactly fair because you'd arguably be able to install the same upgrades on the F-106 or Crusader had they stayed in service.
>>28053088
And you think the Crusader or F-106 could turn any better? The Crusader had the same wing loading and pre-FBW tailless deltas had poor maneuverability.
The Phantom was superior in every aspect that matters in modern ACM:
>thrust/weight ratio
>climb rate
>top speed
>>28053179
>Naval phantoms being more effective than the gunned USAF counterparts
So the F-4 Phantom turned well in comparison to other F-4 Phantoms? That's not a very effective endorsement, anon. From what I've read, the standard response for a Phantom pilot that found himself in a subsonic turning fight was to slam the afterburner and put as much distance between him and the opposition as possible before trying to re-engage. The Phantom couldn't out-turn MiGs, but it could outrun and outclimb them.
>>28053238
Ok, then lets not forget that for a good long while the Phantom lacked a gun.
>>28053179
Navy pilots were generally trained better than the Air Force ones thanks to Top Gun.
>>28053280
>So the F-4 Phantom turned well in comparison to other F-4 Phantoms?
No, it means that it turned well enough. Surely if maneuverability were as vital as you think, the gunned phantoms would have performed better. Seeing that it didn't, the statement of "lol couldn't turn" is wrong and a little retarded
>>28053290
Yeah of course I know that. But the gun wasn't really all that necessary in the first place. The Navy Phantoms attained a better kill ratio than USAF Phantoms despite never mounting a gun, and even USAF Phantoms achieved more kills with missiles (particularly the infamous AIM-7) than guns.
>>28053315
You're comparing F-4s phantoms to slightly different F-4 phantoms. I never said anything about guns, or lack-thereof. I'm talking about the actual maneuverability of the aircraft itself. Navy Vs Airforce doesn't really matter, and neither do kill counts.
>Surely if maneuverability were as vital as you think, the gunned phantoms would have performed better.
Why? Whether you have the gun or not, missiles are still more effective.
>>28053270
Why is the F-106 even part of this? They weren't used for the same role, and the F-106 wasn't even used in combat. Also, the phantom usually engaged at higher speeds, which increased the turn radius. Also
>every aspect that matters in modern ACM
That is definitely not every aspect that matters in modern ACM
>>28051282
>Is there a reason why the Soviets never built an aircraft as versatile as the F-4?
Stalin had all the smart Russians killed, forever dooming the nation to economic stagnation and technological laggardness.
>>28053352
see
>>28053173
Listen to the Ace that talks in the video. To paraphrase, he would have gotten 9 more kills with the Phantom if he had a gun. It was a big deal.
>>28053377
The Phantom was compared with the F-106 as part of USAF evaluations back when McNamara decided we needed to standardize the inventory (Operation Highspeed). Comparative tests found that the F-4B was just as capable as the F-106 as a fighter.
>>28053407
Unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence from a single pilot doesn't really prove much.
>>28053416
It doesn't matter. They still weren't used for the same role whatsoever, nor did the F-106 even make it to the fight.
>>28053407
I'll add the video to my list of sources.
>>28053432
Do you have something better faggot?
>>28053432
>first-hand evidence from a Vietnam ace
>doesn't really prove much
Well, I don't know who you'll believe, then.
>>28052845
Imagine this but with 20mm cannons.
>>28053470
Holy fuck. It'd be like a cluster bomb or a gunpowder lawnmower.
What is that thing?
>>28053523
"Hedgehog"
It's about 40 submachine guns tied together. The idea is that you can fly over and murder enemy soldiers. If you have good timing, you could probably get a lot of kills in one pass.
>>28053549
>If you have good timing
And there lies the problem. Even when they tried it in WW1 with planes flying under 100mph it wasn't accurate or effective.
>>28051679
you can't just take a tractor and be competitive on formula1. Different missions requires different capabilities, and after a certain point you can only make tradeoffs. just think multiculturalism, it doesn't work pretty much for same reasons
>>28053597
>you can't just take a tractor and be competitive on formula1.
You can if the "tractor" was explicitly designed to allow it to perform such a task in addition to its other duties.
>>28053567
Oh I agree. I never said anything about it being effective. In truth, it seems like those SMGs would be much better used by ground troops. 40 extra troopers with SMGs would probably be more worthwhile than a mediocre ground attack plane that runs out of ammo in less than 5 seconds.
>>28053597
>Bad analogies: The Post
Technology has improved to the point where multiroles are at the very least preferable to niche-role aircraft.
It's less a case of "make a Formula 1 a tractor" and more a case of abandoning light/medium/heavy tanks post-WW2 in favor of the MBT.
>>28053641
Eh
I would say its more that we haven't had a real war in a very long time, air forces are shrinking, and all aircraft need to be able to do bombing of goat farmers, since thats all aircraft have been doing for the last 40 years.
Same thing with light/medium/heavy tanks
Not having any wars, so you have unlimited time to just make all your tanks into heavy tanks.
>>28053641
light-medium-heavy tanks have somewhat similar role. once engines got good enough, merging them to mbt's was an obvious choice.
A CAS plane and a fighter have completely different jobs, they couldn't be further apart. it's not a difference created by our limitiations. Physiscs themselves ask for radically different airplanes.
>>28053639
tractors have to be high, and have large tires to be function in the mud without getting stuck.
formula 1 cars basically tries to be close to ground as they could.
your f1 tractor would be lousy for both its missions.
>>28053709
>A CAS plane and a fighter have completely different jobs, they couldn't be further apart.
The Strike Eagle says hi.
>>28052920
>this angle
>>28052920
>>28053741
this fucking angle
>>28053709
Close air support literally just means dropping bombs on enemy troops upon request from local friendly forces. You can accomplish this with a fighter. You can accomplish this with a bomber. You can accomplish this with a subsonic attack plane like the A-10 as well, but it isn't mandatory. You don't need a special aircraft to perform close air support.
>>28053401
>doomed to technological lagardness
>sputnik
>gagarin
>your mothers gaping, blood streaked, spam cavern
>>28053523
A waste of SMG's.
What's the point of putting a bunge of weapons with a maximum range of around 250m on a large, relatively slow plane?
>>28053741
>>28053751
>implying that matters at all when an anti-tank missile doesn't need to hit a specific part of the tank to fuck it
>>28051405
No, the Su-24 was a copy of the F-111. Apparently the Russians haven't gotten around to copying the F-4. Maybe it was because they were too busy copying the Tomahawk or something.
>>28053834
>America lands on the moon in 1970.
>It's 2015 and still no Russians on the moon.
>Russia is literally 45 years behind.
>>28053709
>Physiscs themselves ask for radically different airplanes
Not for quite some time now. "Low and Slow" CAS has been dead for quite some time now. Everything now is sitting high and out of reach lobbing standoff weapons or coming in as fast and low as possible and toss-bombing or firing another standoff weapon. Both of those profiles are excellently suited to a fighter.
Note how the actual best attackers and strike aircraft since WW2 have all had performance similar to a fighter (and in many cases were derived from one). The biggest difference between fighters and attackers since about the 60's has been electronics, and they've advanced to the point where you're no longer limiting performance to be multirole.
>>28053881
>meaningless PR stunt that cost like 100 billion dollars
>hurr how come noone else did it? :))
>>28053873
Convergent evolution, really. The Su-24 has pretty much nothing in common with the Aardvark save the basic layout, and that's more due to similar roles than any real copying. Besides, the Su-24 was derived from a delta-winged design fitted with lift-jets.
>>28053902
>his country doesn't have the resources to throw funds at absurd nationalistic dickwaving projects
>>28053881
>don't really specify the exact period of 'technological dullardness'
>get called out
>hurrr durrr you're wrong because you didn't read my mind
>>28053902
>more data about the nearest solar object than all of human history put together
>meaningless
k
>>28053938
So what are you going to do with all this data?
>>28053902
>meaningless PR stunt
>literally the crowning achievement of all human history
>>28053432
As opposed to,your expert opinion.
Are you an aeronautical engineer?
A veteran combat pilot?
Anything other than some opinionated loser on a mongoloid cartoon board?
>>28051282
What is the Mig 23/27 combo
>>28051800
Because supporting multiple mission roles usually means it must meet more engineering requirements and there are fewer areas where design tradeoffs can be made.
This increases the development cost, and historically we've seen that governments (not the US government, all governments in general) do not adequately fund this corresponding increase in development cost.
The end result of these two pressures (a high requirements bar and inadequate funding) is that quality is usually cut in areas that are not immediately visible, but which decrease the system performance later on down the road as sustainment and operations community must make up for them.
>>28054092
Neither of those are the equal of the F-4 though, especially not in payload.
>>28054080
>an aeronautical engineer?
Yes
>some opinionated loser on a mongoloid cartoon board?
Aren't we all?
>>28054110
>Because supporting multiple mission roles usually means it must meet more engineering requirements
>historically we've seen that governments (not the US government, all governments in general) do not adequately fund this corresponding increase in development cost.
I'm seeing a lot of big claims with no specific examples to back them up. And please provide examples relevant to military aviation. No tortured analogies about tractors and race cars.
>>28054174
Not that guy, but the Phantom's actually a good (but very dated) example of this. The A-6 and A-7 carried the same payload with the same performance (while loaded), but were far cheaper to fly.
>>28053869
>>Anti-tank gun that can't penetrate tanks
That's what you said and I proved you wrong with the same images from the material you used.
>>28053813
>just dropping bombs on enemy troops upon request from local friendly forces
>local
Which makes it a shitton harder because you don't want to kill your own guys
>You don't need a special aircraft to perform close air support
You do need special equipment, which just happens to be on everything in the US inventory in this day and age. But that was not always the case.
Before the smart weapon era, you needed specialized CAS aircraft to make sure that strike was accurate.
>>28054198
>needed specialized CAS aircraft to make sure that strike was accurate
Or a functioning bombsight. Or even just a pilot trained for basic bombing maneuvers.
>>28054164
>AE
>not a pilot
Opinion discarded
>>28054004
for the planned moonbase, of course
>>28052444
>Although the F-106 was arguably the better dogfighter
How were the 102 and 106 in terms of ACM/dogfighting? I only ever thought of them in terms of gottagofast
>>28053173
Did I see Constellation?
>>28054174
Sure, look up the history of the TFX program and the F-111. They tried to engineer a solution to USAF and USN requirements that didn't end up working out (in the end the USN dropped the program due to weight and performance problems).
Or, read about the M-2 Bradley development in the Pentagon Wars. They were trying to design in NBC survivability, firing ports, etc.
Obviously both of those systems were fielded, but at great development and unit cost and they required many mods over the years to keep them useful.
>>28053352
As I understand it the biggest value of the gun was for strafing anyway
>>28054349
>The F-111
Very successful bomber
>the M-2 Bradley development
Very successful IFV
>TFX program
This is the only legitimate point here. The F-111 was simply too heavy to be adapted into a naval intercept. Disappointing but not a disaster. The Aardvark itself was still a very capable supersonic bomber.
Meanwhile, F-16s and Hornets have been doing just fine for both air defense and close air support for years. Imagine that, two successful planes that can do more than one thing very well.
>>28054308
Not sure about the F-102, but apparently the F-106 was a bit more agile, probably due to being significantly lighter.
>>28054349
>F-111
A half-century old example with an amazing service record despite the failure of the F-111B. The TFX was by no means a failure - part of what made it so bad for the Navy was actually the two things they wanted most (side-by-side seating and an ejecting escape capsule). As an interdictor (which was what Boeing and General Dynamics really concentrated efforts on) it was spectacular, and in many ways was arguably better than even the early Strike Eagles. The only significant modifications it required over the years were the intakes, which were purely a poor design choice and by no means a result of diverging requirements.
>seriously using Pentagon Wars as a source
Are you retarded?
>>28054349
>Or, read about the M-2 Bradley development in the Pentagon Wars
>>28054236
Even before LANTIRN most of the F-16 squadrons trained primarily for ground attack. I imagine the situation with USAF and USMC F-4s was similar. Navy is a different issue.
>>28054254
>trusting anecdotes from grunts over data collected over thousands of missions
Need I remind you of the ridiculous things servicemen believe about their weapons?
>.50 cut you in half from the shockwave
>not allowed to shoot .50 at people
>>28054499
>We should never look at primary sources at all because sometimes they aren't 100% accurate.
>>28054432
>>seriously using Pentagon Wars as a source
>Are you retarded?
The book, not the movie dumbass.
>>28054499
>grunt
>Brigadier General
come on now
>>28051282
The multirole combat aircraft concept was already highly successful by the time of the 2nd World War. The people who keep questioning it are ignorant. The logical organization for any modern airforce is to have a large fleet of multirole fighters backed up by smaller fleets of more specialized aircraft to fill in the gaps in capability as needed where cost allows.
>>28054758
Lots of otherwise smart people believe in stupid memes
>muh chemtrails
>muh creation by god
Just 2 examples
>>28054873
You still haven't offered any superior alternative faggot.
>>28054004
print it out in dot matrix paper, fill a pool with it and then swim through it scrooge mcduck style
>>28054873
Now, I'm not >>28054891 , but he's got a point, faggot. Who would be worthy to provide evidence if not a first-hand source and Ace Phantom pilot?
>>28054349
>Pentagon Wars
>>28056347
>>28054538
>>28054437
>>28054432
I'm not that guy, but explain to me with the Pentagon Wars. I've heard people mock it before. I guess I just want to know what is wrong so I can explain it in the future.
>>28056404
>I guess I just want to know what is wrong
Literally everything. It's your standard
>let's complain about the latest big procurement program because clearly we know better than the entire Pentagon!
story condensed into a movie. Imagine someone taking your standard anti-F-35 memespewing, taking it as fact, and turning it into a movie and you have Pentagon Wars.
>>28057335
Okay, but what specifically is wrong with it?
>>28057410
The problem is that all people tend to get from it is that the Bradley is shit, when that isn't the case at all. It's turned an otherwise excellent IFV into a meme that people want to bring up when they need to seem like they care about problems with the military without addressing the real issues like
>the fact that the VA's so horribly fucked that it's just taken for granted that wounded veterans are going to have to hope a charity comes along and saves them
>Inter-service dickwaving is so prevalent that it's literally forced the development and procurement of entirely new platforms for no good reason
>>28056404
It's hard to take something as being real when there's zero mention of the MICV, XM800, etc all the other programs that ended up getting rolled into one program that became the Bradley.
>>28057670
>Inter-service dickwaving is so prevalent that it's literally forced the development and procurement of entirely new platforms for no good reason
Which platforms?
>DDG-1000?
>>28057670
>>28057762
Maybe I should rephrase the question. Rather than asking what was wrong with the Pentagon Wars, I should have asked "What Actually Happened"? Did the Bradley really start off as a simple troop transport and then slowly morph into a light tank with rocket launchers through mission creep?
>>28057872
That I can help you with. The Navy refused to adopt the F-16 Falcon. They insisted on having their own plane, which is where the F-18 Hornet came from.
>>28057872
>Which platforms?
Most glaring was the VFAX. Congress told the Navy we can't afford to fill the carriers with nothing but F-14s so they had to evaluate the LWF contenders (F-16 and YF-17). Both were fine, but the F-16 was already entering production so the navalized variant would have been just as good but cheaper.
Instead the Navy decided
>b-but we can't fly single engined planes!
Forcing the Pentagon to procure the F-18 instead. It wasn't a shitty plane by any means, but it was unnecessary to develop an entirely new plane just because the Navy suddenly decided they couldn't fly single-engined fighters.
It's shit like the VFAX that makes McNamara's position more understandable. Sure he gets a bunch of shit for forcing standardization in the face of complaints from both services (VFX comes to mind), but in his position it was probably hard to tell the real objections from the excuses to not fly "the other guy's" plane.
>>28057892
>Maybe I should rephrase the question. Rather than asking what was wrong with the Pentagon Wars, I should have asked "What Actually Happened"? Did the Bradley really start off as a simple troop transport and then slowly morph into a light tank with rocket launchers through mission creep?
I'm not too sure about that one, but given the track record of depictions of military programs in popular media, I'd assume literally anything they say in the movie is at best horribly misconstrued.
>>28054174
The Usa aviation contest. They set the required parameters and told Lockheed and Boeing to make a jet.
In all military's no plane except a fighter/interceptor will be by itself.
In military practice this kind of jack of all trades aircraft is useful to help free up and conserve resources. Being able to fill multiple roles gives you options to replace more specialized equipment for a more crucial role. having one plane that can fulfill 4 roles saves you the space of having to have 4 planes each with an individual purpose.
TL:DR A military will have both specialized and versatile planes because both are useful needed, and preform separate roles in maintaining air superiority.
They did.
Aren't Su-34s dropping bombs in Syria?
MiG-23 and MiG-27?
As for the Phantom, it was a purpose built naval interceptor. Everything else came later. And it amazingly worked, and worked well.
Why did the Phantom work so well? Because big fucking engines. Power for performance and payload.
The MiG-25 and 31 should have evolved like the F-15, but the Russians didn't pursue it.
>>28058366
Su-34 and MiG-27 are tactical bombers with some A2A capability for self defense. They cannot be directly compared to a true multirole like the F-4.
>>28058397
MiG-23 did see some use as a multirole. Apart from the MiG-23BN (which was effectively a MiG-27), MiG-23MLs saw use as fighters and attackers in Angola.
>>28058366
Naw, the Phantom was intended as a supersonic fighter-bomber from the beginning. The Navy wanted a beefy fighter that could intercept Soviet bombers in the air and drop a load of bombs itself. The Phantom was their answer to the problem.
The Phantom was a purpose-built all-weather two-seat twin-engine supersonic multirole interceptor/fighter/bomber.
>>28051845
This. You know the platform kicks ass when the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds both used it.
>>28053179
What caused that? Navy was faster in restarting proper fighter pilot training than USAF.
>>28057892
>That I can help you with. The Navy refused to adopt the F-16 Falcon. They insisted on having their own plane, which is where the F-18 Hornet came from.
Navalized F-16 would have been heavier than normal F-16 and it would have had much lower performance than normal F-16.
>>28057993
>Most glaring was the VFAX. Congress told the Navy we can't afford to fill the carriers with nothing but F-14s so they had to evaluate the LWF contenders (F-16 and YF-17). Both were fine, but the F-16 was already entering production so the navalized variant would have been just as good but cheaper.
Ling-Temco-Vought shill plz. Navalized F-16 would have become essentially new plane, way more different from F-16 as F/A-18 is from YF-17. There are plenty of good reasons why Navy went fuck NO! even before actual prototype was made. To meet requirements it would have probably ended up with entirely new engine. F-16 is the light fighter air force wanted, made with completely disregarding naval requirements.
Only way common light fighter would have worked would have been forcing air force to select YF-17.
>>28057892
Essentially the Bradley came about because two similar programs, an IFV and a recon vehicle were rolled into one by congress because they were relatively similar and the recon variant could easily be modified from the IFV version. It was most definitely NIT a case of some generals throwing shit into a design for the hell of it.
>>28051282
I am gonna give it a try:
Design philosophy. In the late 50s russians concentrated on light and small aircraft for their frontline fighters compared to what the west, or rather the US were going for. Best examples should be the mig 21 and su7. While the mig could in fact be used in a fighter Bomber role, its simply couldnt carry enough to be usable as both, a fighter and a fighter Bomber at the same time. Let alone its limited upgrade potential.
You could almost say the same for the su7 if it wasnt for the fact that it simply failed as a fighter but seemed to have potential as a fighter Bomber due to the bigger payload.
Su7 became the su17 a fighter Bomber, highly regarded by the west german airforce for example after the reunification
Mig21 remained a mit 21...
I guess the russians never really built a multirole jet because they didnt See an advantage in it.
>>28060673
>Navalized F-16 would have been heavier than normal F-16 and it would have had much lower performance than normal F-16.
So like every navalized fighter ever?
>>28061195
OP here, thanks. I know that most threads like these tend to come off as troll threads, but I was genuinely curious. The F-4 is just so versatile and from what I was reading, it always seemed to have almost double the payload capacity of contemporary Soviet airframes that it was always measured against.
>>28058481
I always fucked loved how the Phantom II's tail looked, I find it to be the sexiest plane tail out there
>>28051760
>>28054110
The Phantom was not designed as a "multi-mission fighter". It was designed from the outset as a Navy Fleet Defense Fighter.
It just turned out that a high payload, decent maneuverability and blazing speed made it good at a lot of other jobs too.
Keep in mind that the Phantom was phenomenal when it was introduced in 1960. Nothing else even came close. Even the Air Force swallowed their pride and adopted it.
>>28051282
http://youtu.be/NvGesCDMqSU
>>28051760
>>28051650
>No ship will ever defeat the trireme in ship-to-ship combat. Why? Because the trireme was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to sink other ships. No matter what newfangled technology comes along, the Trireme will ALWAYS be best for pure ship-to-ship combat. Fancy gadgets and technology like "missiles" or "engines" would just take away from the core mission and make it more expensive. And don't even get me started on "metal" warships. Everybody knows that the Monitor and Virgina are overprice LEMONs which will NEVER perform in combat as well as the tried and true trireme.
>>28061358
>It was designed from the outset as a Navy Fleet Defense Fighter.
This is true. The Phantom was intended to serve the role of "Naval Defense Interceptor." It was also intended to serve the role of "Attack Fighter." That is why we call it multirole, because it filled more than one role. Imagine that. The fact that the Phantom could carry 8000 kg of bombs was no coincidence, no happy accident of history.
>>28061394
I kek'd heartily
>>28061320
A plane of similair size and speed would be the su15 but that was used as a long range interceptor and with that, not even considered as a multirole jet. Add to that that it busy carrying fuel and fuck huge a2a missles taking away any payload that could have been used by ground weaponry.
I think the US took a lot of their requirements from the success of previous multirole aircraft that had been used. Russians knew their lightweight approach and specialized aircraft worked before, so apart from giving their jets the capabilities to carry bombs and rockets, nothing else was usually done.
This only changed with their 4th gen aircraft.
>>28051282
If the F-4 had those baby whisker canards that the B-1 has, it'd be the cutest plane ever.
>>28052499
>spaces between letters
>double line breaks
>/r/4chans reddit markdown style
Go back to plebbit, you nigger kike faggot.
>>28051282
What was Mig-21.
>>28061336
The Phantom's tail was actually a kind of a crappy engineering compromise.
>vertical stab must be short to fit underneath carrier deck
>... not enough lateral stability
>ok, bring the tailplanes down to give them more vertical surface area
>... now we added a bunch of anhedral and lost roll stability
>ok, we have hinges on the wings anyway, just make them open not-quite-all-the-way so we get our roll stability back
>... alright that's kind of reasonable, but not great
>add stability augmentation
> ... eh, that sort of solves the problem
An F-4 with stability aug on flies about as well as an early F-15 with stability aug off.
>>28051282
MiG-23/7 senpai
>>28051650
Fuck off, you double-digit IQ mongloid
>>28066300
The MiG-21 couldn't even carry 1/2 as many bombs as the F-4.
>>28051760
>Skyraider or Spooky
It doesn't need the permissive airspace of the Skyraider or Spooky to not die when performing CAS missions
>B52
Conceded
>Observation
Depends on what time period, and again, it does not need the same permissive airspace as either of those
>Crusader
Better thrust/weight, more missiles, F-4E got a gun, but the point is not particularly important since most Crusader kills were with Sidewinders
>Delta Dagger
The Phantom has a larger battery of Sparrows as well as having a better rate of climb, which is massively important for an interceptor
>>28066665
>The F4 was a dedicated bomber.
>>28051679
You must be the F-35 lead designer or something
>>28052041
>welcome to 2015
Where almost nobody operates the F-4.
>>28067018
The F-4 was a multirole fighter/bomber/interceptor. It could carry 8000+ kg of bombs over 9 different hardpoints.
In comparison the MiG-21 could carry only two bombs worth a total of 1000 kg together, and it would have to forgo all air-to-air missiles in order to carry those two bombs.
The F-4 could carry a combination of missiles and bombs, so it could perform air-to-ground missions and still carry along a few sparrows/sidewinders in case of an air ambush. Or if it was on air patrol, it could carry a full load of sparrows/sidewinders. Or if somebody on the ground really needed dead, the Phantom drop 9 hardpoints worth of napalm and cluster bombs and then head home. That's the beauty of the multirole platform: you can set it up for a variety of different mission profiles.
>>28067728
Not the other guy, but read the question. "Versatile" does not mean "higher payload."
>>28067704
>Where almost nobody operates the F-4
More people still fly the F-4 than the A-10.
>>28051760
>An F4 will not do Observation as effectively as a Mohawk or Bronco, but it will do it adequately
But was able to be a fast FAC a lot better than those two.
>What is the Su-30 trebeck?
>>28069574
>"Versatile" does not mean "higher payload."
It does if the higher payload allows the plane to perform multiple bombing missions in one flight while still having the ability to defend itself from other planes.
>>28070590
ver·sa·tile
ˈvərsədl/
adjective
1.
able to adapt or be adapted to many different functions or activities
It's not about being able to do everything all in the same mission, but having the capabilities to do various types of missions.
>>28071045
Don't know why this doesn't go through the heads of some in this thread.
>>28071045
>MiG-21
>Can do air-to-air
>Can't do bombing because of shit payload
>Phantom
>Can do air-to-air
>Can do bombing because of excellent payload
Huh. Looks like the Phantom is clearly more versatile anon. Imagine that.
>>28071093
Do you understand the question OP was trying to make? No shit the F4 was more versatile than the MIG21
>>28071184
>No shit the F4 was more versatile than the MIG21
I'm glad you finally admit it. I was getting worried about you for a second.
they did, its called the MIG15
>>28071184
Do you? OP asked if there was a Russian jet "as versatile as the F-4", not just "versatile".
I'm so confused about who is sticking it to who.
>>28071089
I know, right
>>28071269
this desu
>>28053915
>variable wing
>side-by-side seating
>same low-altitude bombing role
just a coincidence im sure
Now that I think about it, the MiG-29. It was initially built as a short range air superiority aircraft, but with a few modifications early on, it was adapted to be an extremely versatile aircraft with both air to air and air to ground capabilities.
Here's a MiG-29 using rockets to smoke some fighters in Syria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJYTFGbnyf4
>>28071800
>two separate militaries couldn't possibly have similar needs and arrive at similar solutions to those needs.
>Also, the variable wing was a rare and special thing back then. It wasn't something that literally everybody was doing.
>>28051282
They were too busy shooting it down.
>>28071281
Does it really need to be that obvious?
>>28067728
>It could carry 8000+ kg of bombs
At what combat range, lol?
>>28074008
>Implying it matters when the MiG-21 could only carry 2 bombs to begin with
>>28051282
Because it's cheaper to train air denial systems operators than pilots.
