TBF/TBM

"Rufus" wrote

It's as much a fighter as a F-105.

KL

F-105's had a gun...

Jack G.

At least an F-105 had a gun...the only way an "F"-117 could shoot down another airplane would be to ram it...

Not hardly. The Thud had a big honking gun in its nose and could move out like a scalded rabbit.

And the FM-1 was a pure licenced version, where the FM-2 was their development of the original design. Grumman was busy with F-6F and TBF production so GM got the design and production of the "light" Wildcat.

A U-2 is hardly utility either....... :)

"Jack G" wrote

And a bomb bay? Hell, an A-10 has a gun - and has shot down aircraft.

KL

"Rufus" wrote

You mean like a F-4C/D?

KL

"Al Superczynski" wrote

As my other examples of an A-10 or F-4C/D show, neither the presence nor absence of speed or armament make it a "real" fighter.

The F-105 was developed as an aircraft for supersonic delivery of air-to-ground nuclear weapons, i.e., to drop bombs, i.e., a bomber.

A quote I dredged up: "The major complaint against the F-105 was that it was, like all its Republic ancestors, a real "Earth lover" that always needed as much runway as it could get to make it into the air. Its highly loaded wings did give it an unbeatable fast ride at low altitude, but they didn't give the Thud much in way of maneuverability, and the thing was generally regarded as being about as agile as a brick." Does that sound like a "real" fighter? And why did the Thunderbirds drop the F-105? A "real" fighter, it seems, would've been well-suited for that role.

I agree that the F-117A should probably have been given an A-x designation. However, the "How DARE you call that plane a fighter!", gut-level reactions are very funny though. . .

KL

Beside this, the main reason was the crash of a B model Thunderbird F 105, that did it. (wing spar failure I think ?) That and the want/need for the new C/D models to go straight to IOC made the switch easy.

It still did VERY well in the A to A role... For a low level strike A/C, 27 1/2 kills aint bad !!!!!

I have had the pleasure of being *supersonic boom'd* by multiple F 105's when I was a kid :)

A very impressive A/C !!

Allan

Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will

Yeah...what Al said...

But you still can't say either of those things about an "F"-117...

Not hardly...and F-4C/D could carry 4+ A/A missiles, possibly score 4+ A/A kills, and then run like hell once it was out of them.

And "F"-117 can't do any of that.

Actually, armament makes all the difference...since it pretty much defines the mission...like FB-111...yeah...right...

Performance is another thing all together. A Jaguar has some of the worst takeoff performance I've ever seen (especially on a hot day in the Mojave...), but it's still capable of being employed as a fighter simply due to the armament it can carry. The Harrier is another case...not that either is particularly "suited" from a performance perspective.

So it was a 'fighter-bomber', which is exactly what the Air Force called it. Today it might have been designated 'F/A-105'.

No MiGs so far, though...

"Al Superczynski" wrote

Like I said before:

I agree that the F-117A should probably have been given an A-x designation. The "How DARE you call that plane a fighter!", gut-level reactions are very funny though. . .

KL

That's one of my pet-peeve misconceptions...the "holes" in the "series". Airplanes just plain aren't conceived or purchased that way, from what I've observed. I don't buy into any "modern Century series" theory...

There isn't a series of "fighter" numbers, but a series of contract numbers let against a call for "Requests for Proposal" or RFP, from what I've seen over the last 20-odd years - which is how we got to XF-35 and XF-32 in the JSF burn down. I got a recent reminder that the McDonnell paper submittal for the JSF RFP was in fact designated "XF-34"...but it was rejected early, MDC was bought up by Boeing, etc. As I recall there were five original comppanies/designs submitted against the RFP for JSF before the elimination and team-up fallout began/ended - XF-31 through

-35, and possibly a -36.

The "F-19" mis-que had little or nothing to do with it being in "series" behind the F/A-18, as I've heard the story...more to do with a generic FAA callsign that the USAF used to use, and that some press guy worked it into a conjecture. Then Testors ran with it, and modelers swallowed it...whole.

I first read that SR-71 tale in "Time" a long time ago. That doesn't lend it any credibility because general news reporters don't know their arse from a whole in the ground when it comes to aircraft.

The 'F-19' is easily understood. The last A/C known was the F-18 followed by the F-20 and F-21. The 'hole' was obvious and few knew that the AF was still naming things with the 'century' designations. Most of those were Soviet types obtained surreptitiously so it was good cover.

Bill Banaszak, MFE

I still don't believe it's an 'airplane'.

Bill Banaszak, MFE