User Panel
There was that time too when those Mig-29's came to shoot down the presidents Air Force 1 and those F-15's came to the rescue and took almost all of the Migs out.
It was a close call. |
|
Quoted:
So your contention is that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration doesn't know the meaning of the word "fighter" - but you do. Interesting ... BTW still waiting for you to post a definition of "fighter" that rules out the YF-12. Not having some trouble finding one, are you? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: NASA operated one as an experimental vehicle, not as a "fighter". That alone proves your silliness wrong. Interesting ... BTW still waiting for you to post a definition of "fighter" that rules out the YF-12. Not having some trouble finding one, are you? |
|
Quoted:
The "F" in YF-12 disagrees........... What you think it is becomes irrelevant when the Air Force is the one who decides its mission and designation. You are wrong. Admit it and move on. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Certainly the MiG 25 ~ Foxbat ~ NATO Code Name ~ First fighter built ever to hit Mach 3 at high altitudes... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/YF-12A.jpg What you think it is becomes irrelevant when the Air Force is the one who decides its mission and designation. You are wrong. Admit it and move on. |
|
|
Quoted:
The A-12 isn't a fighter, and I never claimed that it was. Why do you bring it up? As to the F-12, I posted 3 definitions already. Do you not read the thread before you post? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Still waiting for you to post a definition of "fighter" that includes the F-117 and the A-12. As to the F-12, I posted 3 definitions already. Do you not read the thread before you post? The fact someone thought about using a long range surveillance aircraft as an interceptor doesn't make it a fighter, any more than designating the F-117 a fighter made it one. |
|
"The MX1554 "Ultimate Interceptor, 1954" produced the Convair F-102 that fell far short of the planned speed, altitude, and range performance. It could only fly at 677 Knots at 35,000 feet, with a maximum ceiling of 51,800 feet and 566 nautical mile combat radius. While the F-102 and its improved area-rule follow-on F-106 served as "interim interceptors," the Air Force developed further requirements for a long range interceptor. These long range interceptor requirements, first developed in April 1953, were rewritten in July 1955 and November 1956, after several attempts failed to get an acceptable proposal from competing airframe contractors.
The Air Force sought an interceptor to counter the perceived 1960 bomber threats of Mach 2.0 speed at 61,000 feet, and the revised 1963 bomber threats of Mach 2.2 to 2.7 speed at 65,000 feet. Design studies to satisfy these requirements began in 1953 at Air Research and Development Command and in industry with the MX1554 designed to achieve a Mach 4.5, 150,000 pound gross takeoff weight aircraft, but the aircraft appeared to be beyond the state of the art. So another round of design studies attempted to meet the 1955 LRI (long range interceptor) requirements. These studies called for an aircraft with a cruise speed of Mach 1.7 at 60,000 feet and combat speed of Mach 2.5 at 63,000 feet, with a gross takeoff weight of 98,500 pounds. But this aircraft would have had only marginal capability against the postulated 1963 bomber threat. A subsequent design competition in 1955 between Lockheed, Northrop, and North American was little better than previous ones, but North American came closest to meeting the goals. North American Aviation's letter contract of 06 June 1956 called for a long range interceptor that could operate at 70,000 feet with a combat speed of at least Mach 3. The all-weather interceptor aircraft was to have two engines, two crewmen, and at least two internally carried nuclear or conventional air-to-air missiles. This Weapon System 202 configuration sported a single vertical tail and large delta wing, and was adopted in 1958 after considering iterations with as many as three vertical tails and a large canard." It would seem, good sir, that USAF disagrees with you on that. The mission was long-range, high altitude bomber interception. The same mission as that intended for the North American XF-108 Rapier. When the XB-70 Valkyrie was converted into a research program, rather than a bomber program, the economies of scale would no longer support production of the F-108, as it shared the same engines. Hence an existing aircraft with the speed, altitude, and payload was selected to start from to develop an aircraft for that mission. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-12.htm it was a reconfigured A-12, 1. A second crew position was added for a "weapons system operator" or WSO. (This is a "clue") 2. What did the WSO operate? Hughes AN/ASG-18 fire-control radar. (This is also a clue.) 3. What weapons does the fire control radar control? AIM-47 air-to-air missiles. Oh look - a clue! The modifications were those necessary to turn a recon airframe into a fighter. Nothing shocking about that - fighters get modified for recon, and vice-versa, all through the history of powered flight. and the USAF never flew it on any "mission", it was cancelled. |
|
Did the YF-12 have reconnaissance equipment? No,it carried missiles instead. Was the guy in back a Reconnaissance Systems Officer? No,he was a Weapon Systems Officer. Had it been fielded,it would have been an interceptor or by the definition of most people,a fighter aircraft. In order for the YF-12 to not be considered a prototype interceptor,or had it been funded an operational interceptor,I would have to posit that an RF-8 or RF-101 are actually fighter planes rather than reconnaissance aircraft even though they carried no weapons and that would be crazy talk.
|
|
One of us is dodging. Its not me. I've posted the definitions IN THIS THREAD. You have yet to.
The fact someone thought about using a long range surveillance aircraft as an interceptor doesn't make it a fighter, any more than designating the F-117 a fighter made it one. |
|
Quoted:
Did the YF-12 have reconnaissance equipment? No,it carried missiles instead. Was the guy in back a Reconnaissance Systems Officer? No,he was a Weapon Systems Officer. Had it been fielded,it would have been an interceptor or by the definition of most people,a fighter aircraft. In order for the YF-12 to not be considered a prototype interceptor,or had it been funded an operational interceptor,I would have to posit that an RF-8 or RF-101 are actually fighter planes rather than reconnaissance aircraft even though they carried no weapons and that would be crazy talk. View Quote Was a single operational aircraft ever built? Or was it an experiment that failed because grafting a fighter mission into a reconnaissance aircraft is stupid. |
|
Quoted:
One of us is dodging. Its not me. I've posted the definitions IN THIS THREAD. You have yet to. Perhaps because ther eare none that agree with your cock-eyed notions? Apples and oranges. Interceptors are fighters. Unlike the F117, the F-12 has systems and weapons to engage enemy aircraft. That's a big difference, wouldn't you agree? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: So you're still dodging the question. The fact someone thought about using a long range surveillance aircraft as an interceptor doesn't make it a fighter, any more than designating the F-117 a fighter made it one. So if we're now talking about fantasy airplanes... |
|
Quoted:
One of us is dodging. Its not me. I've posted the definitions IN THIS THREAD. You have yet to. Apples and oranges. Interceptors are fighters. Unlike the F117, the F-12 has systems and weapons to engage enemy aircraft. That's a big difference, wouldn't you agree? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: So you're still dodging the question. The fact someone thought about using a long range surveillance aircraft as an interceptor doesn't make it a fighter, any more than designating the F-117 a fighter made it one. I bet @KA3B knows the story. |
|
Maybe you guys could take the fight about nomenclatures somewhere else.
|
|
Quoted:
Was it ever fielded? Was a single operational aircraft ever built? Or was it an experiment that failed because grafting a fighter mission into a reconnaissance aircraft is stupid. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Did the YF-12 have reconnaissance equipment? No,it carried missiles instead. Was the guy in back a Reconnaissance Systems Officer? No,he was a Weapon Systems Officer. Had it been fielded,it would have been an interceptor or by the definition of most people,a fighter aircraft. In order for the YF-12 to not be considered a prototype interceptor,or had it been funded an operational interceptor,I would have to posit that an RF-8 or RF-101 are actually fighter planes rather than reconnaissance aircraft even though they carried no weapons and that would be crazy talk. Was a single operational aircraft ever built? Or was it an experiment that failed because grafting a fighter mission into a reconnaissance aircraft is stupid. |
|
Am I the only person in this thread that doesn't give a fuck whether the YF-12 was considered an actual fighter or not?
|
|
Quoted:
Am I the only person in this thread that doesn't give a fuck whether the YF-12 was considered an actual fighter or not? View Quote The real world doesn't like clean definitions that can be rubber-stamped onto every possible evolution of a concept. |
|
Quoted:
Seriously, I can't stand the pseudo-intellectualism of nomenclature debates. The YF-12 was a purpose build aircraft for a mission that was obsolete before it went into service. It doesn't fit easily into a category because those categories are defined to be applicable to things people actually need to discuss that are in common use. Trying to shoehorn in in is a stupid debate. Final answer: It's kinda a fighter, but also kinda not... Now can we please get back to shitting on the soviet garbage heap that is the Mig-29 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Am I the only person in this thread that doesn't give a fuck whether the YF-12 was considered an actual fighter or not? Now can we please get back to shitting on the soviet garbage heap that is the Mig-29 |
|
|
Quoted:
Am I the only person in this thread that doesn't give a f*** whether the YF-12 was considered an actual fighter or not? View Quote I'm not sure why that hijack even happened. More MiG-29K model mystery: Russian MiG-29 Crash after Syria mission over the Med: More than meets the eye |
|
Serious question - is there anything really wrong with the F-16 that will make it ineffective against the current generation of commie hardware being fielded? Not including the latest vaporware. Would a fully upgraded and modernized f-16 be good enough for most countries?
If a major shooting war broke out tomorrow, it seems like we should be damned glad the production lines are still open. |
|
Quoted:
Seriously, I can't stand the pseudo-intellectualism of nomenclature debates. The YF-12 was a purpose build aircraft for a mission that was obsolete before it went into service. It doesn't fit easily into a category because those categories are defined to be applicable to things people actually need to discuss that are in common use. Trying to shoehorn it in is a stupid debate. Final answer: It's kinda a fighter, but also kinda not... Now can we please get back to shitting on the Soviet garbage heap that is the Mig-29 ETA: Mig-29 in it's natural state. https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/3yZ6FiPwg9S2X0gGvbO1aL1Mtwc=/fit-in/1072x0/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/8f/0f/8f0fff63-222b-4f8c-b7be-d0d07fe0407d/02c_sep2014_mig29990327-a-5415t-030_live.jpg View Quote |
|
The 25 was pretty much a straight rip off of the Avro Arrow. So the tech was from the 60s. For the time, the Arrow was a definite air superiority platform, then the entire program was scrapped just as production was going to start. 3 years later, 25 appeared. The RCMP just made a statement that the entire program was "decisively penetrated by the KGB at all levels". So Avro did all the hard work, but the Soviets execution was a bit lacking.
|
|
Quoted:
The 25 was pretty much a straight rip off of the Avro Arrow. So the tech was from the 60s. For the time, the Arrow was a definite air superiority platform, then the entire program was scrapped just as production was going to start. 3 years later, 25 appeared. The RCMP just made a statement that the entire program was "decisively penetrated by the KGB at all levels". So Avro did all the hard work, but the Soviets execution was a bit lacking. View Quote That the KGB was able to eat the Canadians lunch, that the Arrow would have been a decent, if not exceptional single role interceptor and that MiG, even when given the blueprints, still made a decent, if not exceptional mobile SAM launcher even with another 10 years of tech development. |
|
Quoted:
The 25 was pretty much a straight rip off of the Avro Arrow. So the tech was from the 60s. For the time, the Arrow was a definite air superiority platform, then the entire program was scrapped just as production was going to start. 3 years later, 25 appeared. The RCMP just made a statement that the entire program was "decisively penetrated by the KGB at all levels". So Avro did all the hard work, but the Soviets execution was a bit lacking. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
No. The only way the Arrow was going to see Mach 3 is if it had a 700 mph tail wind. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The 25 was pretty much a straight rip off of the Avro Arrow. So the tech was from the 60s. For the time, the Arrow was a definite air superiority platform, then the entire program was scrapped just as production was going to start. 3 years later, 25 appeared. The RCMP just made a statement that the entire program was "decisively penetrated by the KGB at all levels". So Avro did all the hard work, but the Soviets execution was a bit lacking. |
|
I kick myself for not doing one of the MiG-25PU rides they were offering in the late 1990s to 80k feet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
I kick myself for not doing one of the MiG-25PU rides they were offering in the late 1990s to 80k feet. View Quote Avro Arrow is/was/will always be a POS. I've never heard that the Sovs stole the design from them for the Mig-25. I have always heard that the Mig-25 was based loosely off the A-5 Vigilante, which was similar in size and layout to the Mig-25. I would like to find the GPS coordinates of every surviving piece of the Arrow and have them put into the mix of targets for 2000lb JDAMS when the Great American-Frostback war of 20XX starts. Then I would authorize reattacks on any remains. The only thing the Arrow did was force the Canucks to buy MacD, and even when they went with a superior Fighter A/C manufacturer they messed up and picked the lesser of their product offerings, the Voodoo instead of the Phantom. |
|
Quoted: Still not a fighter, and never operational. View Quote Attached File |
|
Quoted: There was quite a bit of tech transfer, and the Mach 2 aircraft we were building were worthless pigs, too. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: The tech transfer was letting them build F-86s and DC-4s under license - not exactly a route to a Mach 3 fighter. In addition, there is value to building a Mach 2 aircraft, even if a "worthless pig", (which, not all of them were, BTW ....) as it means you have design teams, wind tunnels, engines, material suppliers, factories, etc. Mush easier to go from that to better hardware than starting basically from square 1. View Quote The Century Series, other than the F-100, were worthless pigs...massive investments in aircraft that were single mission losers, nearly always inferior to their naval brothers, and nearly all to the F-4. |
|
Quoted: The Canadians were far more than building knock down kits in the 1950s, and even their knockdowns were considered superior to US production models (certainly in the case of the F-86.) The Century Series, other than the F-100, were worthless pigs...massive investments in aircraft that were single mission losers, nearly always inferior to their naval brothers, and nearly all to the F-4. View Quote The only Naval fighter that had any performance pre-F-4 was the Crusader, which had an appalling mishap rate to go along with its "gunfighter" mystique. |
|
Quoted: Yeah those vaunted Skyrays, Tigers, Cutlasses, and Demons were all world beaters. The only Naval fighter that had any performance pre-F-4 was the Crusader, which had an appalling mishap rate to go along with its "gunfighter" mystique. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
So is the S-3 Viking a fighter? I bet @KA3B knows the story. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So you're still dodging the question. The fact someone thought about using a long range surveillance aircraft as an interceptor doesn't make it a fighter, any more than designating the F-117 a fighter made it one. I bet @KA3B knows the story. |
|
Quoted:
Your argument is quite frankly as absurd as saying that the YF-23 was not a fighter because it was not purchased. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did the YF-12 have reconnaissance equipment? No,it carried missiles instead. Was the guy in back a Reconnaissance Systems Officer? No,he was a Weapon Systems Officer. Had it been fielded,it would have been an interceptor or by the definition of most people,a fighter aircraft. In order for the YF-12 to not be considered a prototype interceptor,or had it been funded an operational interceptor,I would have to posit that an RF-8 or RF-101 are actually fighter planes rather than reconnaissance aircraft even though they carried no weapons and that would be crazy talk. Was a single operational aircraft ever built? Or was it an experiment that failed because grafting a fighter mission into a reconnaissance aircraft is stupid. |
|
|
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.