4 ms·

He was right? His lightweight fighter isn't so light and has been more utilized in an air-to-ground role than as a fighter. If he'd been right, the F-16 wouldn

He was right? His lightweight fighter isn't so light and has been more utilized in an air-to-ground role than as a fighter. If he'd been right, the F-16 wouldn't have all those hardpoints or a radar (he believed air combat would be managed by ground controllers). You can say the F-16 evolved, but it sure as hell didn't evolve as he thought it should. The AF and Navy/USMC need a plane for dropping bombs. They keep hacking fighters to do that. But they're more right than Boyd was.

chiph 13y ago
Compared to the F-111, the F-16 is very light (well, almost everything is lighter than an F-111...). He fought against the F-16 being certified in the nuclear role and lost. I hadn't heard he was opposed to a radar in the F-16 -- depending on ground control doesn't make sense for an offensive unit. He probably didn't anticipate how lightweight modern electronics have become.
- greedo 13y ago
  Yes, he wanted the F-16 to be purely a daylight fighter, with simple avionics and a fast turnaround time.
nl 13y ago
His lightweight fighter isn't so light The F16 is around 27,000 lbs (air-to-air loaded)[1], the F15 (which was developed around the same time)is 48,000 pounds[2] The F16 did develop a pretty decent ground attack capability but it does have a pretty good air-to-air record too: eg, the Israelis used it against the Syrians in the early 80s, the Turks and Greeks used them against each other in non-shooting dogfights[3]) The AF and Navy/USMC need a plane for dropping bombs. They keep hacking fighters to do that. But they're more right than Boyd was. Meh.. I'm not sure this is a simple right/wrong thing. There have been very limited wars where airforces have been reasonably closely matched since the F16 entered service. In the mid 70s (after Vietnam & the Yom Kippur war in the Middle East) no one predicted that at all. It was only the Yom Kippur war that made planners see what a threat SAMs were on the battlefield (they had been fairly ineffective against fighters during Vietnam) When one side has air supremacy, then yes - they will use that as much as possible. It's been that way since WW1 [1] http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html [2] http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_15_Eagle.htm http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_15_Eagle.ht... [3] http://www.f-16.net/news_article1809.html http://www.f-16.net/news_article1809.html (there are other incidents too)

chiph 13y ago

Compared to the F-111, the F-16 is very light (well, almost everything is lighter than an F-111...). He fought against the F-16 being certified in the nuclear role and lost. I hadn't heard he was opposed to a radar in the F-16 -- depending on ground control doesn't make sense for an offensive unit. He probably didn't anticipate how lightweight modern electronics have become.

greedo 13y ago
Yes, he wanted the F-16 to be purely a daylight fighter, with simple avionics and a fast turnaround time.

nl 13y ago

His lightweight fighter isn't so light The F16 is around 27,000 lbs (air-to-air loaded)[1], the F15 (which was developed around the same time)is 48,000 pounds[2] The F16 did develop a pretty decent ground attack capability but it does have a pretty good air-to-air record too: eg, the Israelis used it against the Syrians in the early 80s, the Turks and Greeks used them against each other in non-shooting dogfights[3]) The AF and Navy/USMC need a plane for dropping bombs. They keep hacking fighters to do that. But they're more right than Boyd was. Meh.. I'm not sure this is a simple right/wrong thing. There have been very limited wars where airforces have been reasonably closely matched since the F16 entered service. In the mid 70s (after Vietnam & the Yom Kippur war in the Middle East) no one predicted that at all. It was only the Yom Kippur war that made planners see what a threat SAMs were on the battlefield (they had been fairly ineffective against fighters during Vietnam) When one side has air supremacy, then yes - they will use that as much as possible. It's been that way since WW1 [1] http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html [2] http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_15_Eagle.htm http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_15_Eagle.ht... [3] http://www.f-16.net/news_article1809.html http://www.f-16.net/news_article1809.html (there are other incidents too)