camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Raouls Used Camlshop) (04/17/91)
From: camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Raouls Used Camlshop) pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes: >One other bit of news - the 4/8 issue of _AW&ST_ reports that the USAF >will not phase out the F-4G Wild Weasals yet. What strikes me as odd is that >they would want to use an F-16 platform as a successor. Why not the F-15?? Do >they have something against two engines in a fighter??? (:-) ) When the F15 and F16 were first authorized, wasn't there some debate about "Why both planes?". If I recall correctly, the response was that the F16 was a cheaper/better high agility/air superiority plane, while the F15 was the better all around/add-it-on-it'l-fit plane. If this is truely the case, then F16's would be better for the mission of Wild Weasel due to its manuverability. (Provided the modifications do not seriously warp its performance.) Any comments? -- james seymour camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu (04/18/91)
From: pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu [18 lines of unnecessary quoted text deleted; context is clear from the reply. Many readers just skip articles that fill the first screen with quote; try not to use more than 3-7 lines, or better yet none at all! --CDR] The next generation Wild Weasel (spelled it right this time) supposedly will be highly automated - i.e., late 1980's technology. Thus, no need for a back seater (this isn't IMHO; _AW&ST_ says/implies it). The best idea would be to take the orphaned F-15B/C models (after ATF comes on line), strip them like they did the F-4's, & rebuild on F-15G lines. The jamming/radar band ident task can be automated, thus would need only one person (this is IMHO). Also IMHO, the F-15 is about as agile as an F-16 (maybe less, I do not profess to be an expert on maneuverability), and is more survivable. F-15's also have the two engines, which gives them a distinct safety/speed margin. Mind you, I like the F-16, but I think it'd need _major_ modification - a more powerful engine, greater wing area (maybe), and a significant bulk-up, armor- wise (like the CAS version). Better to go with the "all around/add-it-on-it'll -fit" plane that seems designed/destined to be a great "weaseler." All a lot of IMHO, of course! Peter Stockschlaeder University of Scranton pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu "37 days to graduation....thank God."
scottl@convergent.com (Scott Lurndal) (04/19/91)
From: scottl@convergent.com (Scott Lurndal) > The next generation Wild Weasel (spelled it right this time) supposedly > will be highly automated - i.e., late 1980's technology. Thus, no need for a > back seater (this isn't IMHO; _AW&ST_ says/implies it). The best idea would be > to take the orphaned F-15B/C models (after ATF comes on line), strip them like > they did the F-4's, & rebuild on F-15G lines. The jamming/radar band ident > task can be automated, thus would need only one person (this is IMHO). Well, since there are already operational F-16 Wild Weasel squadrons, all this is academic, nicht wahr? The F-16 WW pilots I saw interviewed all believed that the F-16 platform was well-suited for WW work. Source: Discovery Channel program (Firepower, if I recall correctly).