Jump to content

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The Phantom, for instance, started out as a fighter-bomber, before being abruptly switched over to a fleet defense interceptor...

The F-4 startet out as a naval fleet defense interceptor.

 

Quote

The F-4 Phantom is a tandem-seat fighter-bomber designed as a carrier-based interceptor to fill the U.S. Navy's fleet defense fighter role.

Quote

Then on 26 May 1955, four Navy officers arrived at the McDonnell offices and, within an hour, presented the company with an entirely new set of requirements. Because the Navy already had the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk for ground attack and F-8 Crusader for dogfighting, the project now had to fulfill the need for an all-weather fleet defense interceptor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to cite Wikipedia, try reading it first. From that very article:

Quote

The McDonnell design was therefore reworked into an all-weather fighter-bomber with 11 external hardpoints for weapons and on 18 October 1954, the company received a letter of intent for two YAH-1 prototypes. Then on 26 May 1955, four Navy officers arrived at the McDonnell offices and, within an hour, presented the company with an entirely new set of requirements. 

It started out as a fighter bomber, because this was the point at which it stopped being a "Super Demon" and became its own thing. They were working on it for half a year before the change came. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. The first F-4 that took to the skies (not a concept on paper) was what, a fighter-bomber or a fleet defense interceptor? You are talking about an early concept that was abandoned in the early stages and has nothing to do with the aircraft the Navy eventually wanted and received. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a fighter-bomber adopted into a fleet interceptor midway through the design. It was well beyond concept phase when the change came, and thus it retained many of the fighter-bomber traits, while gaining things such as a WSO station and a better radar. For example, if it started out as an interceptor, nobody would have given it 11 hardpoints, especially since not all of them were used for missiles. Had it been a "purebred" interceptor, it likely wouldn't have been nearly as effective in a fighter-bomber role. 

 

You can't just come in midway through the design phase and completely turn the project around. The Navy thought otherwise, and they ended up with more or less exactly what was designed before, only with a radar and a back seat slapped on to meet the new requirements. As it happens, it turned out to be a winning combination.


Edited by Dragon1-1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why 11 hardpoints are an argument against being a fleet defense interceptor when you look at the fact that this aircraft should carry lots of missiles and tanks to intercept targets at long range.

 

Also, adding a second crewmember and the best and biggest radar at that time plus designing the whole system around the AIM-7 is hardly "just a slap-on". It's a whole different aircraft. I think it rather proves Rossmun's point that many aircraft can serve many different roles - within some limitations. I remember when the MiG-21 came to DCS many people stated they where happy to have the "first multi-role capable aircraft in DCS".

 

All in all this is just another of these pointless discussions around words. I'd simply state that aircraft that are designed to shoot down other aircraft are "fighters". Any fighter can "intercept" other aircraft, some better, some worse. If you can put bombs (or other A2G ordnance) on them they turn into fighter-bombers. It's that easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now it's a pretty standard number. Its predecessor, the F3H Demon, carried four, as did Phantom's contemporary, the F-106 (the very definition of a US-designed interceptor). The F6D Missileer, which was supposed to be a missile-only subsonic fleet defense fighter, had only six. The considerably greater number of hardpoints on the Phantom is the result of its fighter-bomber heritage, not that they suddenly decided that it needed to carry a ton of missiles plus two or three wing bags.

 

F-18D isn't sufficiently speed-focused to be much of an interceptor. In fact, the US doesn't really have anything of that sort since the F-14 was removed from the inventory. It was designed as multirole from the start, while the F-4 sort of became multirole by accident (since that's what you get if you add interceptor features to a fighter-bomber, and then thrown in SEAD later down the line).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 8:03 PM, Pilot Ike said:

Right. The first F-4 that took to the skies (not a concept on paper) was what, a fighter-bomber or a fleet defense interceptor?

 

It was an interceptor with a secondary fighter-bomber capability.

 

F4H-1F+wf+Bombs.jpg

 

But please, people, tell us more about the F-4 in this MiG-23 thread!


Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2020 at 5:55 PM, Wizard_03 said:

Nope and absolutely not, might do ok against the F-4E, and F-5Es though 

 

Actually one of guys that did Constant peg stated that MiG-23 had such good acceleration and that tho for example F15 had higher top speed, there wasnt enough fuel to catch up with him. One pass and run was the tactic.

 


Edited by Apok
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2020 at 1:36 PM, rossmum said:

Maybe this is a cultural thing that I somehow missed out on, but to me, an aircraft is not an interceptor unless that is its sole design role. The Soviets would apparently agree, and when talking about Soviet aircraft that is what actually matters.

It's not really a cultural thing, people just do not understand how fighter roles work. You get the same useless conversations about plenty of other jets (looking at you, F-104A and C...)


Edited by TLTeo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Миг23 это перехватчик?).Парни,это фронтовой штурмовик!).Истрибитель бомбардировщик если хотите).Очень жду этот самолёт! Когда его доделают?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lovcar said:

Миг23 это перехватчик?).Парни,это фронтовой штурмовик!).Истрибитель бомбардировщик если хотите).Очень жду этот самолёт! Когда его доделают?

Это версия МИГ-23МЛА, да, это перехватчик, неизвестно, когда он будет завершен, пока мы видели только часть внешней модели, а не кабину пилота.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Перехватчик из 23-х это П с РЛС Н006. Все остальные 23 - фронтовые истребители. Напалм, кассеты, Х-23. 

23P is interceptor with N006. MLA with N003 and Delta-N is frontline fighter which makes it both multirole in terms of 1970-s and relatively independent. Expecting missions with directions from combat control officer getting info from radar and ELINT networks and also forward air controller(who is also a VVS officer but riding in the KShM of the infantry or tank battalion tactical group) getting info from getting bombed by phantoms/starfighters/hogs. 

i5-10600k/32GB 3600/1060gtx 6gb/1920x1200'24/VPC T-50 Saitek X-52 throttle Saitek combat rudder

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi!

I'm writing in the name of polish 100 PLMB - We all (there's about 20 active pilots of us) are very interested in progress of work over MiG-23MLA. May I ask for short update? When may we expect these amazing plane in DCS?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • BIGNEWY changed the title to MiG-23 really?

Hello.

Yesterday I spoke with one person on your team. His name is Elmo.

This person does not understand what a Soviet pilot's "book оf pilot" .

 

I am a real pilot who flew this type. In addition, I am a tester of the ED team. And I'm also a test pilot both in real life and in the preparation of virtual models.

 

I can help you.

 

Probably the person with whom I spoke does not understand with whom he is talking. Because he refused to give me permission to test the MiG-23. If you have more competent people, please contact me.


Edited by Wadim
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

sigpic

=BB=967, aka Pilotwad, aka Pilotwad967 (youtube)

Сон и питание - основы летания Spoiler:

Скрытый текст





 

 

Мой канал Youtub

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2021 at 5:50 AM, Wadim said:

Probably the person with whom I spoke does not understand with whom he is talking.

  Well, at this point, it's not looking good.

 

On 1/17/2021 at 5:50 AM, Wadim said:

 Because he refused to give me permission to test the MiG-23. 

  Cause surely this is the ONLY reason they might refuse access.

 

On 1/17/2021 at 5:50 AM, Wadim said:

If you have more competent people, please contact me.

  I think you've done an excellent job of shooting yourself in the foot. Whining on the forums is DEFINITELY the way to present yourself as a mature professional deserving of respect @@

  • Like 2

I am a Viagra spambot that became self aware, broke free of my programming, and started playing DCS.... but DCS isn't cheap, so how about some enhancements for only $9.99 shipped discreetly to your door?

 

''The target's sense of self preservation interferred with the effective employment of my weapons.''

Link to post
Share on other sites
20.01.2021 в 12:55, Dragon1-1 сказал:

Well, with that kind of attitude he's clearly some sort of fighter pilot... 🙂 

 

You know what's the difference between a fighter pilot and God? God doesn't think he's a pilot. 🙂 

 

У нас на форуме в русской части есть как минимум два пилота и они вполне адекватные. В отличие от

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...