What if the Fighter Mafia never got started? Hypothetical "Low" companion to F-15 if there was no Vietnam War

Volkodav said:
I used to dislike the A-7, but the more I look into it the more I realise that it was perfectly good enough and could have been even better.

It is far more versatile than both smaller/lighter attack types, as well as larger strike types, while much cheaper to own and operate than large multirole fighter/strike types. Similar can be said of Jaguar and AMX.

Factor in podded targeting systems, modern multimode radars, guided munitions, as well as short and medium range agile air to air missiles, and aircraft like the A-7 look like much better value for money / bang for your buck, for many real-world missions than many other options.

The caveat is you will still need a supporting air superiority type and possibly a long-range strategic strike option, but then again, having such a mix would be more capable than relying on one multirole type.
Click to expand...
Frankly the a-7x upgrade would have both been a better airplane and cheaper then the f-18 ended up being.
 
Last edited:
Desertfox said:
But the question is, if Germany has bought F/A-17 or ND-102, do they have the money for Tornado?
Click to expand...
In the political climate at the time, I strongly believe the answer is no. That's why Tornado/MRCA was quite literally sold as an Eierlegende Wollmilchsau, i.e. an egg laying woolly milk sow, which means a multirole combat aircraft, including battling enemy fighters and bombers.
 
Most missions undertaken by "light" fighters are actually attack and strike missions at transonic speeds. By not even pretending they are fighters, so much money could be saved on not bothering with the 400kt at sea level and enjoying the lower cost of ownership and versatility in every other way.
 
Volkodav said:
Most missions undertaken by "light" fighters are actually attack and strike missions at transonic speeds. By not even pretending they are fighters, so much money could be saved on not bothering with the 400kt at sea level and enjoying the lower cost of ownership and versatility in every other way.
Click to expand...
But then you need aircraft that can do the air superiority missions. Which means a whole nother type of aircraft to operate, with all those related costs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But then you need aircraft that can do the air superiority missions. Which means a whole nother type of aircraft to operate, with all those related costs.
Click to expand...
True but the money saved on the light side could be invested in more, large, multi-role fighters. When you look at it, Phantom, Eagle, Tomcat etc. all proved to be very capable strike aircraft.
 
Volkodav said:
True but the money saved on the light side could be invested in more, large, multi-role fighters. When you look at it, Phantom, Eagle, Tomcat etc. all proved to be very capable strike aircraft.
Click to expand...
Except that instead of operating 3 squadrons of multirole, you end up needing 2 squadrons of attackers and 2 squadrons of fighters.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Except that instead of operating 3 squadrons of multirole, you end up needing 2 squadrons of attackers and 2 squadrons of fighters.
Click to expand...
Do you though?

What missions do they actually fly, what ordinance, and what is the capability of the individual platform?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom