The US Armed Forces adopting the F5 in a large scale manner intended for combat use

[Monk78]

Do we think a modernized F4 would really stand any real chance against a Mig29 or SU27 are they not far better aircraft, even 2nd hand ex WP or former USSR Mig29s that would have been for sale in 90s in large numbers? Would be able to kill any F4 it meets in close combat, worse if it got maybe a light upgrades of say post Cold War Russian, Israeli or French etc other 3rd parties commercially available missiles/radar/jammers would make it unbeatable by any F4 unless it's set up with lots of outside help and just a missile truck for the AWACS?

F4 will be mostly a air to ground platform by early 80s as in OTL
I meant F-4 countering them in the air to ground role

Germans kept their F4F until the end of the Cold War primarily as fighters and they were the most frontline state

And if AIM-120 had been available earlier even F-4 could take on the fulcrums

 

[Monk78]

NATO Members and 'allies' around the world who want to buy the F-16 would be pissed at the US, can you imagine the Israel Lobby taking that sitting down? Or the Industrial Military Complex who'd be loosing out on money? If this was brought forwards as a bill, you'd basically get every senator who accepts 'donations' from the IMC/Israel going against it. You'd basically have to have a US Senate/Congress AND President have a rush of shit to the brain, forget the threat from the Soviet Union exists and be willing to screw themselves out of a lot of money.



Again you seem to have this idea of wanting to fight a fair fight or not have so much of an advantage over your opponent for some reason, which just won't happen, if you can get the best kit possible to defeat an enemy, and secure your country, you do so. You don't go "Yeah those F-86's will be fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine!" in the 70's or 80's or start planning to produce 1950's jets again because your peer opponent has MiG-21's or if you're in China, MiG-17's and 19's as their front line jet in the largest numbers.

No you get the thing that will kill as many of their kit, whilst saving as many of your guys lives. Its like whinging that stealth is an unfair advantage and the F-35 shouldn't be deployed because of that. Of course its an unfair advantage, you don't want to ever, ever fight fair in a battle.

So essentially it was a political decision not dictated by military necessities? That is what im arguing
Appeasing political lobbies and being swayed by greed of MIC does not equal maintaining deterrence against USSR

It’s not about a fair fight but not needlessly propagating a arms race

 

[jsb]

You buy what you can, and NATO was taking steps to secure itself, and what 'recklessness' Belgium? Norway? The F5 compared to the F-16 is crap, its not as flexible, not as capable and not able to be as modernized and adaptable.

So essentially it was a political decision not dictated by military necessities?

It’s not just about a fair fight but not needlessly propagating a arms race

It would be a good way to ensure the European fight industry survives better as they all buy none US aircraft rather than the F16s they did in OTL? Mirage F1 & 2000 sales will likely be much higher and you might get more others Saab 37 Viggen exported like earlier & later Saab fighters?

 

[jsb]

F4 will be mostly a air to ground platform by early 80s
Germans kept their F4F until the end of the Cold War

But were they not planing on replacing them with Eurofighters and just the end of Cold War cuts lead to it being slow that doesn't mean they were not obsolescent as LW had better ground attack aircraft in its tornadoes already?

 

[Simon]

When your enemy has a muzzle loading musket you don’t need a machine gun , a rifle will suffice.

Sure you do. Facing opposition armed with muzzle-loading muskets if I'm given the choice between having rifles or machine guns for arming my side I'm choosing the machine guns as it will likely be so overpowering that it means fewer casualties and needing to use fewer men.

"Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not."
―Hilaire Belloc

 

[RanulfC]

Forgive me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that LWF program that eventually led to the f-16 was originally designed as a tech demonstrator and faced not much interest by USAF but later got a new lease of life due to many NATO countries wanting a F-104G /F-4 replacement and later got more traction mostly due to many overseas customers expressing interest. Carter tried to reverse the proliferation of hi tech fighters with 79 version ( which in itself was not much downgraded ) but that sadly was reversed by the next administration.

NATO countries AND the US needed to replace the more 'ground attack' oriented aircraft in the inventory, hence the A7 but the Air Force specifically wanted initially to try and replace all it's aircraft with F-15s. That was not going to happen so they invested more into the LWF program and this also checked off the boxes for a lot of foreign buyer who either didn't want or didn't need the bigger and more expensive F-15. Both the F-105 and F-4 needed replacing by that point and it was Congress prior-to and during the Carter years more than the next administration that pushed the programs to operations.

Most of these export customers also wanted the f-16 to be in US inventory too and this led to its widespread adoption. Maybe I’m speculating but concerns about capturing the export market from European builders played a role here as well .

The Air Force was going to adopt the F-16 so foreign orders helped defray the costs of the program and individual airframes. And the ability to sell American products to other buyers always is a consideration if we can 'afford' it

So in an alternate version we could see US admin restricting export of hi tech fighters worldwide with most countries having to do with “tenth rate fighters “ as Sadat called them.

We're doing that now and those nations are not buying "tenth rate fighters" but either buying from someone else or developing their own. The F-5 was outdated by the late 80s, which is why Northrup came up with the F-20. But it still wasn't enough and the F-16 was what customers wanted. Fighter "generations" are a real thing.

Would an improved version of F-4 or mirage F1 not be suitable for Denmark Belgium Netherlands Norway strike aircraft requirements ? Esp given the defensive nature of NATO. All other major non-US users ( esp turkey Greece Israel ROK Egypt Pakistan ) did they really need such a sophisticated aircraft ( most of the sophistication being for attack roles) given its closest soviet equivalent ( mig-29) was not available in large numbers until 1990 ?

The problem was that as you note the actual role needed was 'defensive' fighters capable of true multi-role operation and the F-16 was actually that being as good an air-to-air asset as an air-to-ground one and having lot of improvement lifetime on it's clock. Again the F-16 checked way more boxes in requirements and FUTURE requirements than the F-5 could or even the F-4 and Mirage F1. That's what the F-20 showed that the 'customers' really DID want that extra complexity as it gave them a much better fighter for longer with more upgrade capability than something like the F-5
(The Mig-29 is actually closer to the F-15 than the F-16)

Granting that the Israelis' managed a significant upgrade on their F-4s (and Turkey's) keep in mind they essentially rebuilt them from the ground up using local industry it was a very expensive way to push the airframe (barely) to the end of the 20th Century. Meanwhile everyone that own the F-16 is pretty much still upgrading them)

And I understand hindsight is 20/20 but there was no indication that mainstay of most soviet satellites was going to be more than just mig21 and some mig-23 variants right upto the last few years of the Cold War.

That the Mig-21's and 23's would be upgraded was an assumption as they were just as long-in-the-tooth as the F-4 was. Plus the initial appearance of the Mig-25 had a lot of people worried the Soviets were developing and going to deploy airframes on par with the F-15 sooner than they actually did.

Randy

 

[CV12Hornet]

So essentially it was a political decision not dictated by military necessities? That is what im arguing
Appeasing political lobbies and being swayed by greed of MIC does not equal maintaining deterrence against USSR

It’s not about a fair fight but not needlessly propagating a arms race

It was absolutely dictated by military necessity. Every country that bought the F-16 had aging, obsolescent or obsolete aircraft that needed to be replaced yesterday. Fighters like the F-5, F-104, and Mirage III were not cutting it anymore.

And “needlessly propagating an arms race”? Weapons advance, Monk. They’ve advanced even without an arms race, post-Cold War. And frankly the F-16 is so far down the list of things that perpetuated the Cold War arms race it’s not even funny.

 

[RanulfC]

F4 will be mostly a air to ground platform by early 80s as in OTL
I meant F-4 countering them in the air to ground role

The need for a 'straight' Air-to-Ground aircraft when you have a limited budget and need to cover more missions means you need to have an aircraft that can cover those missions. In that context the F-16 made more sense and specifically to address the thread background the F-5 is not going to make up for the needed air-to-air AND air-to-ground capability.

Germans kept their F4F until the end of the Cold War primarily as fighters and they were the most frontline state

Keep in mind that Germany had a very specific 'role' in NATO planning and frankly a older but cheap "missile/bomb truck" (aka what the original F-4 was designed to be) was actually workable all the way through the end of the Cold War with that airframe.

And if AIM-120 had been available earlier even F-4 could take on the fulcrums

Not according to a lot of Luftwaffe pilots at the end of the Cold War when East Germany had Mig-29's

If they'd had the AIM-120 (and the radar and avionics to handle them) then they get 'one-shot' at BVR, one shot at long range and then it's down to a knife fight/turning battle that was exactly NOT where you want to be in a Phantom against a Mig-29. F-15 pilots had to be on their toes in a turning engagement with a Mig-29

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

So essentially it was a political decision not dictated by military necessities? That is what I'm arguing
Appeasing political lobbies and being swayed by greed of MIC does not equal maintaining deterrence against USSR

As note it's not about "appeasing" political lobbies, it's about militaries needing to upgrade and replace aging equipment that no longer (in many cases) can fulfil all the roles and responsibilities that are needed to be covered.

It’s not about a fair fight but not needlessly propagating a arms race

It's never about a 'fair' fight if you can at all help it. It's about having all the advantages and force-multipliers on your side as you can. Machine guns versus muskets and all that.
(Maxim 37: There is no "overkill" there is only "open fire" and "I need to reload" )

Randy

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

It’s not about a fair fight but not needlessly propagating a arms race

If it's a fair fight the people in charge have screwed up very badly.

 

[AndrewSt]

The US Army Aviation branch cons the Air Force into agreeing to allow them to use armed trainers for ground support in Vietnam and gets the F5 classified as such?

Yes, if the US Army used them, then later bought F-20s, there'd be no need for the A-10 and the USAF wouldn't be stuck today with a platform they don't want. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[RanulfC]

The US Army Aviation branch cons the Air Force into agreeing to allow them to use armed trainers for ground support in Vietnam and gets the F5 classified as such?

Oddly the Air Force was essentially "kind-of" on board with such an idea dealing with the A-10 just before Gulf War 1

There had been discussion of transferring the A-10s to Army but stipulating that the platforms being "limited" to carrying only smoke and marking rockets. I noted at the time that as the A-10 required the GAU-8 (and ammo load) to fly properly the actual 'need' for smoke and marking rockets was questionable at best

Randy

 

[Father Maryland]

Yes, if the US Army used them, then later bought F-20s, there'd be no need for the A-10 and the USAF wouldn't be stuck today with a platform they don't want. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I was just thinking that instead of the A10 it might have made more sense with hindsight to have gone with the
YA7F (the derivative of the A7) then the A10. It could have been developed earlier then OTL. With the right modifications (like a A9/A10 style Titanium bathtub) it could have been a versatile design good for CAS and strike missions while also capable of doing some basic handling of itself in the air. With the right versatility involving different weapons option it could have been quite versatile and useful. More so then the A10.

Now I'm thinking about the USMC potentially purchasing a navalized variant to supplement the early F18s. Allow the F18s to grow more air to air capability while the A7F becomes more of the jack of all trades air to ground jalopey of the Marine Corps.

Wonder if there could have been any foreign sales and to whom.

I'm thinking it'd end up being designed for basic air to air with the capability of carrying 2-4 short range IR missiles (like the Sidewinder or depending on the foreign purchaser maybe one of the other short range heat seeking options) but with the ability to carry a large amount of air to ground ordinance of various types.

In terms of foreign purchasers two options that occurred to me would be the ROC (intended to be operated dispersed with it's strong landing gear allowing for roadway operation and the ability to carry a M61 and up to 4 Sidewinders along with a impressive load out of Mavericks or other short ranged guided rockets/missiles for slaughtering waves of PLAN landing craft. Another option might be the ROK but instead for taking on legions of obsolete but still numerous NK artillery and armored vehicles.

I could see it potentially have a pretty decent air to ship capability either with a bunch of smaller guided weapons (like Mavericks/Penguins/Sea Skuas/Hellfires) or a handful of say up to 2 to 4 larger more capable muinitions (like say AGM 123 Skippers or Harpoons) along with options for large quantities of "dumb weapons" including various bombs, cluster bombs, rocket/gun pods and such. Maybe even a secondary mine laying role with one carrying say two CAPTOR mine systems per sortie.

 

[BlueTrousers]

So in an alternate version we could see US admin restricting export of hi tech fighters worldwide with most countries having to do with “tenth rate fighters “ as Sadat called them.

They did. The result was the F-16/79 and F-20. Nobody bought them, and proper F-16s were cleared for export instead.

There had been discussion of transferring the A-10s to Army but stipulating that the platforms being "limited" to carrying only smoke and marking rockets. I noted at the time that as the A-10 required the GAU-8 (and ammo load) to fly properly the actual 'need' for smoke and marking rockets was questionable at best

There was a similar stipulation for Army observation aircraft in Vietnam. It turns out that direct hits mark targets really well, and most bombs can create a lot of smoke.

 

[Monk78]

They did. The result was the F-16/79 and F-20. Nobody bought them, and proper F-16s were cleared for export instead.

There was a similar stipulation for Army observation aircraft in Vietnam. It turns out that direct hits mark targets really well, and most bombs can create a lot of smoke.

Because full spec F-16 was already available, naturally why would they go for inferior options

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I've re

There was a similar stipulation for Army observation aircraft in Vietnam. It turns out that direct hits mark targets really well, and most bombs can create a lot of smoke.

I've read that the Grumman Mohawk was rather potent at C.A.S. and the USAF brass hit the roof when they found out what the Army was doing with them in Vietnam.

 

[Ramontxo]

Forgive me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that LWF program that eventually led to the f-16 was originally designed as a tech demonstrator and faced not much interest by USAF but later got a new lease of life due to many NATO countries wanting a F-104G /F-4 replacement and later got more traction mostly due to many overseas customers expressing interest. Carter tried to reverse the proliferation of hi tech fighters with 79 version ( which in itself was not much downgraded ) but that sadly was reversed by the next administration.
Most of these export customers also wanted the f-16 to be in US inventory too and this led to its widespread adoption. Maybe I’m speculating but concerns about capturing the export market from European builders played a role here as well .

So in an alternate version we could see US admin restricting export of hi tech fighters worldwide with most countries having to do with “tenth rate fighters “ as Sadat called them.

Or they would have made Marcel Dassault even richer.

 

[Monk78]

Or they would have made Marcel Dassault even richer.

Or sanctioned France for needlessly proliferating hi tech weapons in volatile regions of the world

 

[steamboy]

With your drive to make the West stop giving weapons out, and selling them, are you applying the same 'logic' to the Soviet Union or PRC? Do you think they'll go "Well they're not developing anything, "CAN THE MiG-29! The Mig-23 will be fine!" kind of thinking to stop what you think of as volatility?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Or sanctioned France for needlessly proliferating hi tech weapons in volatile regions of the world

Why the fuck would they do that.