5 ms·

Actually, I know exactly why they thought it was a good idea. At the time they were sold a platform that would have a large amount of part commonality, be very

Actually, I know exactly why they thought it was a good idea. At the time they were sold a platform that would have a large amount of part commonality, be very low purchase cost, and low maintenance cost. With the latter assisted by the fact that the entire US Military establishment would be using it. I feel that explaining why the civilian government thought it was a good idea is one of the easier things to explain in the entire F-35 saga.

gaius 10y ago
They should have paid more attention to the RAF's experience of trying to make the Tornado fulfil all roles...
- WesleyLivesay 10y ago
  No doubt. I think the allure of a one-size-fits-all aircraft is just too tempting. For each new generation people just throw away the failures of the past by claiming that NOW we have the technology to not have those same issues.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  The RAF didn't even operate one variant of the Tornado (the ECR), using the IDS for those purposes (the GR1/4)! Another question is why was the F-4 so successful across all branches of the US military?
  - Scramblejams 10y ago
    This is an instructive question that should be asked more often in the context of the F-35. A key difference in the F-4's gestation is that the Navy pretty much single-handedly drove all of its requirements. (The USAF didn't really want any part of it, and in the end it was shoved down their throats.) And if you think about it, the Navy's requirements tend to be more stringent. The Navy requires more range (blue water ops and less tanker support), more durable stealth coatings and features (shipboard life is hard on an airplane), better fatigue life (carrier landings take their toll), more corrosion resistance (saltwater exposure), simpler maintenance (all work done in crowded decks with limited ability to fly in new parts), lower approach speeds (the slower the plane lands, the more flexibility the captain has in how s/he drives the boat) and so on. So when the F-4 was designed, it was born out of a relatively (!) unconflicted set of requirements, rather than being a grand compromise on behalf of every customer. This is how I think the F-35 should have gone -- the Navy should have set the requirements, the USAF should have been allowed to add their own refueling gear, and if the Marines wanted VTOL that bad they should have gotten together with the Brits and modernized the Yak-141 airframe to which Lockheed bought rights, as any other alternative would have been too expensive.
  - nickff 10y ago
    The F-4 was likely deemed successful because it could launch off most US aircraft carriers, and it was the best they had at the time, so they made it work. The Phantom II was not a perfect machine, but the large radar, heavy weapons load, carrier-capability, and high-speed made it quite useful. On the other hand, it had no internal gun, guzzled fuel, had a very smoky engine, and wasn't very maneuverable.
  - douche 10y ago
    It took a lot of retrofitting on the F-4, too, once they were actually used in anger over the skies of South East Asia. Turns out that the technology for beyond-visual-range air combat wasn't quite ready then...

gaius 10y ago

They should have paid more attention to the RAF's experience of trying to make the Tornado fulfil all roles...

WesleyLivesay 10y ago
No doubt. I think the allure of a one-size-fits-all aircraft is just too tempting. For each new generation people just throw away the failures of the past by claiming that NOW we have the technology to not have those same issues.
gsnedders 10y ago
The RAF didn't even operate one variant of the Tornado (the ECR), using the IDS for those purposes (the GR1/4)! Another question is why was the F-4 so successful across all branches of the US military?
- Scramblejams 10y ago
  This is an instructive question that should be asked more often in the context of the F-35. A key difference in the F-4's gestation is that the Navy pretty much single-handedly drove all of its requirements. (The USAF didn't really want any part of it, and in the end it was shoved down their throats.) And if you think about it, the Navy's requirements tend to be more stringent. The Navy requires more range (blue water ops and less tanker support), more durable stealth coatings and features (shipboard life is hard on an airplane), better fatigue life (carrier landings take their toll), more corrosion resistance (saltwater exposure), simpler maintenance (all work done in crowded decks with limited ability to fly in new parts), lower approach speeds (the slower the plane lands, the more flexibility the captain has in how s/he drives the boat) and so on. So when the F-4 was designed, it was born out of a relatively (!) unconflicted set of requirements, rather than being a grand compromise on behalf of every customer. This is how I think the F-35 should have gone -- the Navy should have set the requirements, the USAF should have been allowed to add their own refueling gear, and if the Marines wanted VTOL that bad they should have gotten together with the Brits and modernized the Yak-141 airframe to which Lockheed bought rights, as any other alternative would have been too expensive.
- nickff 10y ago
  The F-4 was likely deemed successful because it could launch off most US aircraft carriers, and it was the best they had at the time, so they made it work. The Phantom II was not a perfect machine, but the large radar, heavy weapons load, carrier-capability, and high-speed made it quite useful. On the other hand, it had no internal gun, guzzled fuel, had a very smoky engine, and wasn't very maneuverable.
- douche 10y ago
  It took a lot of retrofitting on the F-4, too, once they were actually used in anger over the skies of South East Asia. Turns out that the technology for beyond-visual-range air combat wasn't quite ready then...