RAeS webinar: The Supply of Future Combat Aircraft. 29 July 2020

[marauder2048]

So three in all, with most of the century series having the gun designed in from the start. You are fixating on the F-4's US service record, but look at the German and Japanese aircraft - thoroughly modified, much longer service. Both countries choosing the Vulcan-carrying models as a starting point, so McD must have done something right.

German and Japanese aircraft were, AFAIK, never used in combat. And the E+ models were the only ones being manufactured.
It's equivalent to saying foreign Air Forces only bought the F-15E+ after the mid-90s. Well yeah..it was the only F-15 on offer.

So the the F-4s in Japan and German use are completely irrelevant.

It took 9 years to get a version of the F-4 with an internal cannon that didn't cause flameout. That's not flexibility.

In many cases, the F-4 served as long as it did in foreign Air Forces and was purchased in the quantities it was
because the US was initially reluctant to export the US-versions of the teen-series.

Example: The F-4J intercept exercises against the SR-71 were instigated by Kissinger to prove to the Israelis
that they didn't need the F-15 to intercept the MiG-25.

That's also where "Northrop's Folly" aka the F-20 came in until the export F-16's got the unattenuated US power plants.

 

[red admiral]

They were deliberately designed via CAPE and the SAR and the joint Air Force/Navy VAMOSC system
to be comparable. That's why those costs have been the basis for all the comprehensive studies that rely on actuals

Hahahaha - you obviously don't have much involvement in costing. It's really easy to hide stuff just by labelling things differently. e.g. your point on recent programmes spending lots of money on upgrades - it's often just similar amounts of money as for "maintenance" or "through life support" previously but spent on different cost codes.

So for the UK at that time Typhoon predicted costs of c. 50% O&S (outturn? npv?), maybe that proportion was impacted somewhat by buying significantly fewer aircraft but operating for 40years instead of 20? You can't work out actuals until the programme is over - but it'll vary for each programme so you need to understand both general trends and specific impacts

And heavier aircraft are better? Eh? First I've heard anyone claim that. Heaviness is the opposite of "good" aircraft design.

 

[Arjen]

The F-4E served with the Israeli air force for as long as it did because it did the job. In combat. They were eventually retired because they were worn out from use. The German and Japanese aircraft proved the Phantom's adaptability, even if they didn't see combat like the Israeli aicraft.

 

[marauder2048]

They were deliberately designed via CAPE and the SAR and the joint Air Force/Navy VAMOSC system
to be comparable. That's why those costs have been the basis for all the comprehensive studies that rely on actuals

Hahahaha - you obviously don't have much involvement in costing. It's really easy to hide stuff just by labelling things differently. e.g. your point on recent programmes spending lots of money on upgrades - it's often just similar amounts of money as for "maintenance" or "through life support" previously but spent on different cost codes.

Feel free to focus on the data; it's very deliberately called out in the O&S breakdowns.
Just because the data doesn't say what you want it to say doesn't mean you can start casting aspersions on it.

So for the UK at that time Typhoon predicted costs of c. 50% O&S (outturn? npv?), maybe that proportion was impacted somewhat by buying significantly fewer aircraft but operating for 40years instead of 20? You can't work out actuals until the programme is over - but it'll vary for each programme so you need to understand both general trends and specific impacts

The predictions in the source you cited (claiming it said something else btw) matches the actuals for fighter programs over the intervening 24 years.
It doesn't change the breakdowns either. And Typhoon has the been the recipient of some very expensive upgrades which had
protracted and expensive development programs. Not picking on Typhoon but that's been the case for other programs as well.

And heavier aircraft are better? Eh? First I've heard anyone claim that. Heaviness is the opposite of "good" aircraft design.

Hence the growth in OEW for all modern fighters. I guess they are all not "good."

 

[marauder2048]

The F-4E served with the Israeli air force for as long as it did because it did the job. In combat. They were eventually retired because they were worn out from use.

They used it for strike and wanted it for that reason since 1965 (you know before the internal cannon).
Their A2A was pretty much all Dassault until the teen series showed up and the French cut them off.

 

[Arjen]

Yes, and the German aircraft were for A2A. The Japanese aircraft were fitted to anti-shipping use. Adaptable.

 

[marauder2048]

Yes, and the German aircraft were for A2A. The Japanese aircraft were fitted to anti-shipping use. Adaptable.

Where they were never used in combat. So claims about adaptability are....meaningless.

Adaptability says nothing about utility.

More specifically, two huge enablers of F-4 A2A utility, TISEO and Combat Tree, were, AFAIK, not typically exported.
Certainly not in meaningful quantities.

What the history of the F-4 proves for Air Forces with money, is that if higher authority directs you to take something,
you can at considerable cost of treasure and blood turn that something into a serviceable aircraft
that's dumped as soon as anything remotely better comes along.

 

[Arjen]

The Germans fitted their own A2A gear. By your metric, not being used in combat rendering all claims of utility meaningless reduces ICBMs and SLBMs to unproven scrap. I notice you are accepting adaptability?

 

[marauder2048]

The Germans fitted their own A2A gear. By your metric, not being used in combat rendering all claims of utility meaningless reduces ICBMs and SLBMs to unproven scrap. I notice you are accepting adaptability?

Because no one is claiming that ICBMs and SLBMs are "adaptable." And we're talking about fighters and not one-time use munitions.
The A-4 was adapted to carry a Davis gun; it was shown to have no combat utility.

By the crude adaptability metric you are propounding, the F-104 is surely an example of an adaptable aircraft (it did *CAS* in combat FFS)
that's left out of the discussion because it doesn't fit Pryce's argument.

Most of the adaptability claimed is merely wartime improvisation which practically every single fighter type that got used in Vietnam experienced.

 

[Arjen]

I am not claiming adaptability for ICBMs, I am claiming utility. Just as you are now denying utility to the F-4's adaptations. Crude metric indeed.

 

[marauder2048]

I am not claiming adaptability for ICBMs, I am claiming utility. Just as you are now denying utility for the F-4's adaptability. Crude metric indeed.

What drove the so-called adaptations for the F-4? It was actual combat in Vietnam. That's the ground truth for measurements of utility.

Combat motivated the adaptations for ever single other combat aircraft that flew combat missions in Vietnam.

It is completely unclear if things like the so-called internal cannon were an improvement over the gun-pod that preceded it
since the corrections for the flameout due to hot gas ingestion weren't even complete until US involvement was nearly finished.

The combat record does not really reflect improved efficacy.

Wartime mods/improvisations of many forms were made to practically every type of aircraft that served over there.
Some undoubtedly aided combat performance (RHAW). Some were neutral. Some were negative.

Consequently, claims about combat driven adaptability are meaningless without demonstrable utility.

But since there's no realistic possibility for combat-driven adaptability of ICBMs and SLBMs you spend
massive sums making them as reliable as possible and then buy huge quantities of them in order to launch
large quantities of them to ensure that probabilistically, the aim points you are servicing are killed.

There was a reason there was a staggeringly expensive strategic arms race.

 

[Arjen]

The Israeli F-4Es had the Vulcan gun replaced by a pair of 30mm DEFA cannon, added a FLIR-sensor and integrated their own Gabriel A2G and Python A2A missiles. Among various other modifications, combat tested.
75 of the German F-4Fs had their AN/APQ-120 replaced with AN/APG-65 radar, along with AMRAAM integration, laser gyro INS, a new data bus and new air data computers. 75 fighter-bomber F-4Fs made do with new INS, data bus and air data computers. Apparently worthwile to the Germans, considering how much they spent on it, but meaningless to you.
Japanese F-4EJs had a data link to the Japanese BADGE defence system, J/APR-2 tail warning radar. All of them had the AN/APQ-120 replaced by AN/APG-66J radar. F-4EJ(KAI) had the new radar, Litton INS, HUD, updated radar homing and warning, as well as integration with AIM-7F, AIM-9L and ASM-1 anti-ship missiles. Apparently worthwhile to the Japanese considering how much they spent on it, but, again, meaningless to you.

 

[galgot]

Sorry Arjen, I think it was the Israeli A-4s that got DEFAs.
That said, I see the F-4 as the first big twin engine supersonic fighter bomber having enough range and carrying capacity , and good AA fighting capability.
It became the standard reference from which subsequents twin jets fighters requirements couldn’t do less.
It when through so many different versions, carrier borne , fighter-bomber, reco, ww, not counting all the improvements , don’t see how it wasn’t adaptable, even if with some tries and errors.
Others of the same time were just too specialized, or single engined and shorter range.

 

[Arjen]

I took my copy of McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920: Volume II by René J Francillon, Putnam 1990, to find out what had been done to the Israeli F-4Es. On page 233 I found this: '(3) the replacement of the 20-mm M-61A1 rotary gun with a pair of 30-mm DEFA cannon'. <edit> Read it again, Francillon leaves open the possibility that it was an experimental installation </edit>
If that is incorrect, I need to stick a marker inside my copy.
The Israelis had planned more drastic modifications with their Kurnas 2000 project, but that came to nought when they realised how worn out their F-4s were.

 

[galgot]

I took my copy of McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920: Volume II by René J Francillon, Putnam 1990, to find out what had been done to the Israeli F-4Es. On page 233 I found this: '(3) the replacement of the 20-mm M-61A1 rotary gun with a pair of 30-mm DEFA cannon'. <edit> Read it again, Francillon leaves open the possibility that it was an experimental installation </edit>
If that is incorrect, I need to stick a marker inside my copy.
The Israelis had planned more drastic modifications with their Kurnas 2000 project, but that came to nought when they realised how worn out their F-4s were.

:O First time I hear about that. Wonder how and where these DEFAs were mounted...
btw, while looking for infos about that, found this excellent blog:

The Phantom Phacts

Notes on my research into the history of the F-4 Phantom II and all it's variants actual or proposed.

phantomphacts.blogspot.com

But alas nothing about that mod.

 

[kaiserd]

It is deeply uncontroversial that the F-4 and the F-16 have both irrefutably proved themselves to be highly successful, flexible evolving combat aircraft. Any claims to the contrary probably say more about the people making such claims rather than anything to do with the aircraft themselves.

 

[red admiral]

Yes, I now realise that I've been wrong all these years and that black is actually white...

 

[marauder2048]

It is deeply uncontroversial that the F-4 and the F-16 have both irrefutably proved themselves to be highly successful, flexible evolving combat aircraft. Any claims to the contrary probably say more about the people making such claims rather than anything to do with the aircraft themselves.

Pryce's original claim was the F-4 prevailed over the Century Series because it was "more adaptable."

The prevailing view in the "SIERRA HOTEL FLYING AIR FORCE FIGHTERS IN THE DECADE AFTER VIETNAM", the definitive account
of post-Vietnam AF, was that the despite all of the mods, the F-4 was no better than the F-105 in attack missions.

Most of the A2A mods did not translate into better A2A performance and in some cases degraded it; the F-4E models in Israeli service
still experienced compressor stalls due to HGI from the gun. Despite numerous mods, there was no fix for the tell-tail smokey
engines until the 80's. when the type was all but dead in US service.

The F-4 was the only volume production fighter the USAF had on entry into Vietnam.

They threw mods (retrofit and production) at it because none of the other fighters in development could or would get to
Vietnam in quantity until comparatively late.

So what we have is mere survivor bias because the F-4 had a hot line* and its mods survived the attrition whereas the other
types that were modded during the war had no hot line and the awful attrition of types in that period means we don't see them.


* Which because of excess capacity at McAir post-1972 meant they got dumped on the export market

The F-16 ran out of growth in the 80's. Aside from conformals, you've seen the typical avionics mods that
just about every other long serving type gets.

 

[marauder2048]

The Israeli F-4Es had the Vulcan gun replaced by a pair of 30mm DEFA cannon, added a FLIR-sensor and integrated their own Gabriel A2G and Python A2A missiles. Among various other modifications, combat tested.
75 of the German F-4Fs had their AN/APQ-120 replaced with AN/APG-65 radar, along with AMRAAM integration, laser gyro INS, a new data bus and new air data computers. 75 fighter-bomber F-4Fs made do with new INS, data bus and air data computers. Apparently worthwile to the Germans, considering how much they spent on it, but meaningless to you.
Japanese F-4EJs had a data link to the Japanese BADGE defence system, J/APR-2 tail warning radar. All of them had the AN/APQ-120 replaced by AN/APG-66J radar. F-4EJ(KAI) had the new radar, Litton INS, HUD, updated radar homing and warning, as well as integration with AIM-7F, AIM-9L and ASM-1 anti-ship missiles. Apparently worthwhile to the Japanese considering how much they spent on it, but, again, meaningless to you.

Or they just succumbed to the "sunk cost fallacy" that impacts many militaries particularly in an era where new types aren't readily on offer.

What I see described is:

a. avionics upgrades
b. new stores qualified

Does that not describe every type that served in Vietnam and continued to serve afterwards?

 

[Arjen]

You keep banging on how mods didn't come about until the F-4 was being phased out of US service, and ignore the F-4's career that's continuing today, with the intervening decades showing all kind of mods, even with other combat aircraft entering the market.

 

[marauder2048]

You keep banging on how mods didn't come about until the F-4 was being phased out of US service, and ignore the F-4's career that's continuing today, with the intervening decades showing all kind of mods, even with other combat aircraft entering the market.

Second Tier, small and/or comparatively poor Air Forces have to make do.

They have to weigh the cost of small quantities of new types (where the fixed standup costs are big) against sunk costs;
frequently they make the wrong decision.

But that's clearly not the focus on Pryce's presentation so it's fine to ignore the F-4 in their service; he conveniently omitted the F-104 for that reason.

 

[galgot]

You keep banging on how mods didn't come about until the F-4 was being phased out of US service, and ignore the F-4's career that's continuing today, with the intervening decades showing all kind of mods, even with other combat aircraft entering the market.

Second Tier, small and/or comparatively poor Air Forces have to make do.

They have to weigh the cost of small quantities of new types (where the fixed standup costs are big) against sunk costs;
frequently they make the wrong decision.

But that's clearly not the focus on Pryce's presentation so it's fine to ignore the F-4 in their service; he conveniently omitted the F-104 for that reason.

Japan's JSDAF is a second tier / poor Air Force ?! Surprised to know... They just retired their last F-4s last march.

 

[marauder2048]

You keep banging on how mods didn't come about until the F-4 was being phased out of US service, and ignore the F-4's career that's continuing today, with the intervening decades showing all kind of mods, even with other combat aircraft entering the market.

Second Tier, small and/or comparatively poor Air Forces have to make do.

They have to weigh the cost of small quantities of new types (where the fixed standup costs are big) against sunk costs;
frequently they make the wrong decision.

But that's clearly not the focus on Pryce's presentation so it's fine to ignore the F-4 in their service; he conveniently omitted the F-104 for that reason.

Japan's JSDAF is a second tier / poor Air Force ?! Surprised to know... They just retired their last F-4s last march.

They are barely in the top ten in terms of overall military spending; less than 1% of GDP on defense. And their AF has the lowest share of their overall budget.
The USMC has more fighters than the JASDF.

 

[Arjen]

Israel, Germany, Japan, South Korea aren't exactly paupers.
- 280+ aircraft in Israel, the last ones serving well into the 21st century
- 260+ aircraft in German service, last one retired in 2013
- 150+ aircraft in Japanese service, last ones retired in March
- 210+ aircraft in South Korea, still flying them last year

South Korea, Israel and Japan had F-4s in service alongside F-15s, Germany had its Tornado fleet.
1% of GDP in rich countries like Japan and Germany is still a lot of money. South Korea and Israel are spending rather more than 1%.

 

[galgot]

You keep banging on how mods didn't come about until the F-4 was being phased out of US service, and ignore the F-4's career that's continuing today, with the intervening decades showing all kind of mods, even with other combat aircraft entering the market.

Second Tier, small and/or comparatively poor Air Forces have to make do.

They have to weigh the cost of small quantities of new types (where the fixed standup costs are big) against sunk costs;
frequently they make the wrong decision.

But that's clearly not the focus on Pryce's presentation so it's fine to ignore the F-4 in their service; he conveniently omitted the F-104 for that reason.

Japan's JSDAF is a second tier / poor Air Force ?! Surprised to know... They just retired their last F-4s last march.

They are barely in the top ten in terms of overall military spending; less than 1% of GDP on defense. And their AF has the lowest share of their overall budget.
The USMC has more fighters than the JASDF.

Well, if you measure what is a "poor Air Force" by the US mil spending yardstick, everybody else's Air Force is poor anyway…
So it can't be taken as a reference.

Btw, no one would deny the F-4 had flaws. Yet I don't see what other contemporary fighter when the F-4E came out that could do as much as well.
Others couldn't do AA fight as well, or when they could do better (no one would deny there could have been some), they couldn't carry enough load farther.

 

[marauder2048]

Well, if you measure what is a "poor Air Force" by the US mil spending yardstick, everybody else's Air Force is poor anyway…
So it can't be taken as a reference.

Of course it can. It's got the most mature data and the most experience. And the most diverse fleet
And its the Air Force's decisions, history, data and experience that Pryce willfully misrepresented.

He also misrepresented RAF data. But there's not as much of it.

Those are two top tier Air Forces from which there is good data.

Btw, no one denies the F-4 had flaws. Yet I don't see what other contemporary fighter when the F-4E came out that could do as much as well.
Others couldn't do AA fight as well, or when they could do better (no one denies there could be some), they couldn't carry enough load farther.

What the F-4 had was the ability for fire AIM-7. But surely that's one those "payloads over platforms" arguments right?

It performed no better in the A/G role than the F-105 it replaced. And it was worse in terms of payload @ range since the
the AF never bought the tanks for the F-4 that had, in part, motivated McNamara's decision to kill the F-105 production.

What the USAF had hoped is that in the A/G role the F-4 would be better at defending itself than the F-105.

This was demonstrably not the case. But because it was the only hot, volume production line after 1964, they made the best of
it. And attrition did in the other types and their mods.

Adaptability is, at the end, all about suitability. Otherwise it's maladaptive.

 

[Arjen]

The USAF as a yardstick to determine which air forces are poor air forces. Obfuscation, now? Along with the shift from adaptability to utility?

 

[galgot]

Well, if you measure what is a "poor Air Force" by the US mil spending yardstick, everybody else's Air Force is poor anyway…
So it can't be taken as a reference.

Of course it can. It's got the most mature data and the most experience. And the most diverse fleet
And its the Air Force's decisions, history, data and experience that Pryce willfully misrepresented.

He also misrepresented RAF data. But there's not as much of it.

Those are two top tier Air Forces from which there is good data.

Indeed USAF/US-NAVY/USMC are super super rich Air Forces, with the most resources/experience/planes/burgers, whatever… ect. So it's clearly not the average.
Hence, they can't be taken as a measure of what would be an average rich or poor Air Force.
JSDAF is a quite rich Air Force, professionally trained and well equiped, sorry.

Btw, no one denies the F-4 had flaws. Yet I don't see what other contemporary fighter when the F-4E came out that could do as much as well.
Others couldn't do AA fight as well, or when they could do better (no one denies there could be some), they couldn't carry enough load farther.

What the F-4 had was the ability for fire AIM-7. But surely that's one those "payloads over platforms" arguments right?

It performed no better in the A/G role than the F-105 it replaced. And it was worse in terms of payload @ range since the
the AF never bought the tanks for the F-4 that had, in part, motivated McNamara's decision to kill the F-105 production.

What the USAF had hoped is that in the A/G role the F-4 would be better at defending itself than the F-105.

This was demonstrably not the case. But because it was the only hot, volume production line after 1964, they made the best of
it. And attrition did in the other types and their mods.

Adaptability is, at the end, all about suitability. Otherwise it's maladaptive.

Of course it performed no better than the F-105 in A/G, yet it was used to escort the F-105s.
That is exactly what I pointed, some could do better, like the F-105 in A/G. Yet these couldn't do as well in A/A.
Others yet, could do better than F-4 in A/A, yet couldn't do A/G as well as it could.
The thing of the F-4 was that it was in average good in any.

 

[marauder2048]

Well, if you measure what is a "poor Air Force" by the US mil spending yardstick, everybody else's Air Force is poor anyway…
So it can't be taken as a reference.

Of course it can. It's got the most mature data and the most experience. And the most diverse fleet
And its the Air Force's decisions, history, data and experience that Pryce willfully misrepresented.

He also misrepresented RAF data. But there's not as much of it.

Those are two top tier Air Forces from which there is good data.

Indeed USAF/US-NAVY/USMC are super super rich Air Forces, with the most resources/experience/planes/burgers, whatever… ect. So it's clearly not the average.
Hence, they can't be taken as a measure of what would be an average rich or poor Air Force.
JSDAF is a quite rich Air Force, professionally trained and well equiped, sorry.

Feel free to find and present good data about their procurement decisions, acquisition costs, O&S costs etc.
JSADF is not a rich Air Force compared to say the RAF. And the RAF has data.

Of course it performed no better than the F-105 in A/G, yet it was used to escort the F-105s.

The F-104 also escorted the F-105s; it was no better in A/G than the F-105 either.
It was heavily modded by many Air Forces. But it was excluded from Pryce's discussion.

That is exactly what I pointed, some could do better, like the F-105 in A/G. Yet these couldn't do as well in A/A.
Others yet, could do better than F-4 in A/A, yet couldn't do A/G as well as it could.
The thing of the F-4 was that it was in average good in any.

It was the only fighter that the AF had in volume production from 1963 until the late 60's.
Strictly by the law of large numbers, it would be average good.

 

[galgot]

Well, if you measure what is a "poor Air Force" by the US mil spending yardstick, everybody else's Air Force is poor anyway…
So it can't be taken as a reference.

Of course it can. It's got the most mature data and the most experience. And the most diverse fleet
And its the Air Force's decisions, history, data and experience that Pryce willfully misrepresented.

He also misrepresented RAF data. But there's not as much of it.

Those are two top tier Air Forces from which there is good data.

Indeed USAF/US-NAVY/USMC are super super rich Air Forces, with the most resources/experience/planes/burgers, whatever… ect. So it's clearly not the average.
Hence, they can't be taken as a measure of what would be an average rich or poor Air Force.
JSDAF is a quite rich Air Force, professionally trained and well equiped, sorry.

Feel free to find and present good data about their procurement decisions, acquisition costs, O&S costs etc.
JSADF is not a rich Air Force compared to say the RAF. And the RAF has data.

The point is not to compare with the RAF.
JSDAF has 62 F-2s, 155 F-15s, 12 F-35s ( and 135 on order), 4 AWACS 767s, 14 E-2s… ect, ect. You have a strange definition of poor.
Why would I check more data on JSDAF when we clearly don't have the same ways to measure things.

Of course it performed no better than the F-105 in A/G, yet it was used to escort the F-105s.

The F-104 also escorted the F-105s; it was no better in A/G than the F-105 either.
It was heavily modded by many Air Forces. But it was excluded from Pryce's discussion.

Thank you, and the F-104 was worst in A/G than the F-4 too. Some could argue it was not as good than the F-4 in A/A as well.

That is exactly what I pointed, some could do better, like the F-105 in A/G. Yet these couldn't do as well in A/A.
Others yet, could do better than F-4 in A/A, yet couldn't do A/G as well as it could.
The thing of the F-4 was that it was in average good in any.

It was the only fighter that the AF had in volume production from 1963 until the late 60's.
Strictly by the law of large numbers, it would be average good.

Well, one as to wonder why it was ordered and put in such production volume if it was that bad.

 

[marauder2048]

The point is not to compare with the RAF.
JSDAF has 62 F-2s, 155 F-15s, 12 F-35s ( and 135 on order), 4 AWACS 767s, 14 E-2s… ect, ect. You have a strange definition of poor.
Why would I check more data on JSDAF when we clearly don't have the same ways to measure things.

The entire origin of this discussion is truly awful presentation that was allegedly data driven
about procurement decisions, fighter design, O&S etc.

The RAF is a top tier, wealthy AF with experience in fighter design, procurement, O&S etc
and it has extensive operational experience and it has *data*

If there's no good data from Japan how is it possible to gain any insights beyond listing inventories and looking
at published budgets? The published budgets suggest it's the weak sister of the three services
which combined with Japan's overall low spending means it doesn't rank as a top tier AF.

It doesn't say anything about their professionalism but they also have little operational experience.

Thank you, and the F-104 was worst in A/G than the F-4 too. Some could argue it was not as good than the F-4 in A/A as well.

So was the F-104 more or less adaptable? That's the central premise here. Data would be nice but
since the F-104 wasn't in production for the USAF after 1958 (IIRC) and its operational history with
other Air Forces is not well documented we'll never really know.

That is exactly what I pointed, some could do better, like the F-105 in A/G. Yet these couldn't do as well in A/A.
Others yet, could do better than F-4 in A/A, yet couldn't do A/G as well as it could.
The thing of the F-4 was that it was in average good in any.

It was the only fighter that the AF had in volume production from 1963 until the late 60's.
Strictly by the law of large numbers, it would be average good.

Well, one as to wonder why it was ordered and put in such production volume if it was that bad.

McNamara (aided and abetted by Enthoven and some Paperclip detritus named Deiter Schwebs).
They of many bad decisions and some good (F-X). That was all decided on well before Vietnam.

 

[galgot]

The point is not to compare with the RAF.
JSDAF has 62 F-2s, 155 F-15s, 12 F-35s ( and 135 on order), 4 AWACS 767s, 14 E-2s… ect, ect. You have a strange definition of poor.
Why would I check more data on JSDAF when we clearly don't have the same ways to measure things.

The entire origin of this discussion is truly awful presentation that was allegedly data driven
about procurement decisions, fighter design, O&S etc.

The RAF is a top tier, wealthy AF with experience in fighter design, procurement, O&S etc
and it has extensive operational experience and it has *data*

If there's no good data from Japan how is it possible to gain any insights beyond listing inventories and looking
at published budgets? The published budgets suggest it's the weak sister of the three services
which combined with Japan's overall low spending means it doesn't rank as a top tier AF.

It doesn't say anything about their professionalism but they also have little operational experience.

Doesn't change the fact that JSDAF is not a poor Air Force. And that it still used F-4s until last march.
It's an Air Force that since her creation had to face possible threats from PRC , North Korea and USSR/Russia. If that doesn't give a bit of experience.

Thank you, and the F-104 was worst in A/G than the F-4 too. Some could argue it was not as good than the F-4 in A/A as well.

So was the F-104 more or less adaptable? That's the central premise here. Data would be nice but
since the F-104 wasn't in production for the USAF after 1958 (IIRC) and its operational history with
other Air Forces is not well documented we'll never really know.

It's obvious it was less. With a less than stelar combat record.
Op story in Euro air forces is relatively well documented.
Btw, the biggest European F-104 user, Luftwaffe, also had F-4s, and kept them much longer than their F-104s. Just like Japan.
Was sold so well cause it was single engined thus cheaper than bigger planes, and Lockheed marketing "expertise".

That is exactly what I pointed, some could do better, like the F-105 in A/G. Yet these couldn't do as well in A/A.
Others yet, could do better than F-4 in A/A, yet couldn't do A/G as well as it could.
The thing of the F-4 was that it was in average good in any.

It was the only fighter that the AF had in volume production from 1963 until the late 60's.
Strictly by the law of large numbers, it would be average good.

Well, one as to wonder why it was ordered and put in such production volume if it was that bad.

McNamara (aided and abetted by Enthoven and some Paperclip detritus named Deiter Schwebs).
They of many bad decisions and some good (F-X). That was all decided on well before Vietnam.

Ok, but I'm not sure that it is McNamara who influenced Israel, Germany, England, Japan… ect, to buy F-4s.

 

[marauder2048]

Doesn't change the fact that JSDAF is not a poor Air Force. And that it still used F-4s until last march.
It's an Air Force that since her creation had to face possible threats from PRC , North Korea and USSR/Russia. If that doesn't give a bit of experience.

If you have data please feel free to provide it. The JASDF has no combat experience of any significance whatsoever.

It's obvious it was less. With a less than stelar combat record.

It didn't serve long enough in combat so the data is by definition sparse.
The F-4 wasn't exactly impressive initially either.

Op story in Euro air forces is relatively well documented.
Btw, the biggest European F-104 user, Luftwaffe, also had F-4s, and kept them much longer than their F-104s. Just like Japan.
Was sold so well cause it was single engined thus cheaper than bigger planes, and Lockheed marketing "expertise".

Lockheed's marketing expertise would not have kept it in service for decades.
The F-4 was in serial production for the export market until 1981. The F-4 line ended long before that.

Ok, but I'm not sure that it is McNamara who influenced Israel, Germany, England, japan… ect, to buy F-4s.

What else did the US have (and make available for sale) during that period?
What, if any were the alternatives for Western-aligned countries?
How did they compare on cost/capability/capacity?


Add to that, after 1972, USAF demand for the F-4 collapsed and there was ridiculous
overcapacity at McAir. That's why I say the F-4 was basically dumped on the export market.

 

[galgot]

If you have data please feel free to provide it. The JASDF has no combat experience of any significance whatsoever.

So what ? I don't see why a well funded, professionnally trained Air Force from a wealthy country should have real combat experience to know exactly what aircrafts it should procure and use. Of course real combat experience helps, but lack of it doesn't makes it a poor Air Force.

It didn't serve long enough in combat so the data is by definition sparse.
The F-4 wasn't exactly impressive initially either.

Compare to which contemporaries fighters ?

Lockheed's marketing expertise would not have kept it in service for decades.
The F-4 was in serial production for the export market until 1981. The F-4 line ended long before that.

Don't see the point here. Fact is these countries kept their F-4s longer than their F-104s. Obviously cause they found them more useful in the end. And were more recent.

What else did the US have (and make available for sale) during that period?
What, if any were the alternatives for Western-aligned countries?
How did they compare on cost/capability/capacity?

Add to that, after 1972, USAF demand for the F-4 collapsed and there was ridiculous
overcapacity at McAir. That's why I say the F-4 was basically dumped on the export market.

From the US, I see Crusader, F-104.
From UK , Lightning;
From France, Mirage family.
None of those where as adaptable as the F-4, because none of those could be as much a good bomber and a good fighter at the same time. And note they must have been all cheaper than the F-4.

If you look at the F-4s buyers, you don't really see poor countries.
F-4 wasn't a cheap kit.

 

[marauder2048]

If you have data please feel free to provide it. The JASDF has no combat experience of any significance whatsoever.

So what ? I don't see why a well funded, profesionnally trained Air Force from a weatlhy country should have real combat experience to know exactly what aircrafts it should procure and use. Of course real combat experience helps, but lack of it doesn't makes it a poor Air Force.

So still no data for the JASDF. How does the JASDF make its decision then? Women's intuition?
Or it has to do analysis on other people's combat data and combine that with in-house models and
its own experience from exercises with its current types and intercept attempts.

But I'm merely guessing since you don't have data.

It didn't serve long enough in combat so the data is by definition sparse.
The F-4 wasn't exactly impressive initially either.

Compare to which contemporaries fighters ?

The F-8

Don't see the point here. Fact is these countries kept their F-4s longer than their F-104s. Obviously cause they found them more useful in the end.

Your spares tend to try up the farther time wise you get away from the hot production line.
And combine that with more retired F-4s available for spares due to the F-4s Navy/USMC buys
and its comparatively short lifespan in the USN and USAF.

From the US, I see Crusader, F-104.
From UK , Lightning;
From France, Mirage family.
None of those where as adaptable as the F-4, because none of those could be as much a good bomber and a good fighter at the same time.

Assuming I accept the premise that buyers looking for big twins are entertaining singles...

The F-104 still had a production line and there was considerable overlap between F-4 and F-104 operators.

The Crusader line was done by the mid-60s; rebuilds were all that followed

The Lightening production line was done by 1967.

Mirage 5 was all that was left after the late 60's.

If you wanted a big twin, it was the F-4. Or you tried to get in line for Tornado, the F-111, F-14 or F-15.

We've established that the F-4 was not a good bomber and a good fighter at the same time.
It was certainly a better radar-guided missile bird than anything else.
And as the AIM-9 improved it became much better in shorter range engagements.

If you look at the F-4s buyers, you don't really see poor countries.
F-4 wasn't a cheap kit.

I see countries too poor or not allowed at that time to buy the F-15. Or the F-14. Or the F-111.

The F-4E does not appear to be much more expensive than contemporary Mirages.

For the US cost structure, the F-4's flyway cost was, in 1971, $2.5 million vs. $2.6 million for the A-7D.

Late model F-104 flyaway seems to be in the $1.5 million+ range. So it's not like it's a 2X difference.

Iran being a fabulously rich country by the standards of the day was offered anything
non-nuclear in the US arsenal by Kissinger. So US export policy can also be a bit schizophrenic.

 

[Arjen]

F-4 production line was very cold at the time of the German and Japanese upgrades, both countries got rid of their F-104s by then. F-15s served alongside F-4s for decades in Israel, Japan and South Korea.
JASDF budget: you yourself quoted a near 1% of GDP defence budget for Japan. Given the size of the Japanese economy, you are stretching the meaning of poor.

 

[galgot]

So still no data for the JASDF. How does the JASDF make its decision then? Women's intuition?
Or it has to do analysis on other people's combat data and combine that with in-house models and
its own experience from exercises with its current types and intercept attempts.

But I'm merely guessing since you don't have data.

Classy...
And if you don't have more data than I do, how are you making a decision that JSDAF is a poor Air Force ? One man intuition ?
Indeed, your are merely guessing.
Again, Why would I check more data on JSDAF when we clearly don't have the same ways to measure things.

The F-8

And the Mirage.
But these combat records are mostly A/A. In A/G, F-4 could and did much better than both.

Your spares tend to try up the farther time wise you get away from the hot production line.
And combine that with more retired F-4s available for spares due to the F-4s Navy/USMC buys
and its comparatively short lifespan in the USN and USAF.

Ok. But for the F-104 service, European had their prod line and spares.

Assuming I accept the premise that buyers looking for big twins are entertaining singles...

The F-104 still had a production line and there was considerable overlap between F-4 and F-104 operators.

The Crusader line was done by the mid-60s; rebuilds were all that followed

The Lightening production line was done by 1967.

Mirage 5 was all that was left after the late 60's.

If you wanted a big twin, it was the F-4. Or you tried to get in line for Tornado, the F-111, F-14 or F-15.

We've established that the F-4 was not a good bomber and a good fighter at the same time.
It was certainly a better radar-guided missile bird than anything else.
And as the AIM-9 improved it became much better in shorter range engagements.

No, you alone declare that here. What I say, is that it was in average good in any. Which is a reason it sold so well.
Tornado, the F-111, F-14 or F-15 were either too specialized or too expensive, or both.
And indeed it (F-4) was all that's left if one wanted a big twin with enough range to bomb farther and be able to fight correctly at the same time.
And improvement in missiles/avionics made that better over time, just like for the others.

I see countries too poor or not allowed at that time to buy the F-15. Or the F-14. Or the F-111.

The F-4E does not appear to be much more expensive than contemporary Mirages.

For the US cost structure, the F-4's flyway cost was, in 1971, $2.5 million vs. $2.6 million for the A-7D.

Late model F-104 flyaway seems to be in the $1.5 million+ range. So it's not like it's a 2X difference.

Iran being a fabulously rich country by the standards of the day was offered anything
non-nuclear in the US arsenal by Kissinger. So US export policy can also be a bit schizophrenic.

The way you judge again what is poor is the way a contemptuous multibillionaire would, with the US defense spending yardstick.
And a multibillionaire is not the average, it's off the charts, an anomaly.

Too poor to buy F-15 ? But that very JSDAF had F-15s flying alongside F-4s for quite some time.
By that statement, the RAF that neither had F-15/14/111s was a poor Air Force then ?

Even if the F-4 wasn't much more expensive than a Mirage, which I strongly doubt, it makes it even more obvious that at the time if one had the choice between the Mirage and the F-4 at about the same price, needing a Fighter-Bomber with longer range carrying and fighting capacity, one would go for the F-4. And the ones being able did.
Mirage was a good A/A plane, but was a comparatively light plane, in A/G it was an attack plane, not a longer range bomber like F-4 could do while still being able to fight correctly.

The F-15 is interesting cause it is in effect what a perfect and much better F-4 should be. Way better than the F-4 for any missions, except in A/G at the beginning , cause early versions were mostly A/A. But still the F-15 versions are more specialized.
This the thing, with all her flaws, the F-4 established a standard of what a correct ranged, correct carrying, and correct fighting abilities supersonic fighter-bomber of the future should pass. Not in USAF term, cause USAF could have the luxury to have specialized fleet , but in the average Air Force term who sees advantages in having a plane that give better capacity in longer range bombing and fighting than a single engined jet at the same time.

 

[kaiserd]

I haven’t seen the presentation or know the person who gave it.
But given the nature and quality of the arguments being put by those that seem offended by it then on the question of who’s most correct my bet is on the presenter.

 

[Arjen]

I have finally listened to Mike Pryce's presentation and found it enlightening.

 

[galgot]

I have finally listened to Mike Pryce's presentation and found it enlightening.

Same here ! Was interesting and learned a lot.
Perhaps a bit too Anglo/US centered, but the author being British, it's understandable.