On Dec 22, 7:25*pm, wrote:

Not sure if this was a joke post but:

What was "wrong" with the F-4 airframe that the F-15 airframe had to be
designed?

Pilots couldn't see much out of the F-4 and it didn't like corners. So
the F-15 was designed with a much better view and dogfighting
abilities.


What was "wrong" with the F-15 airframe that the F-16 airframe had to be
designed?

The F-15 cost a fortune back in the day; the lightweight single-
engined F-16 didn't. The fact fly-by-wire and an unstable design made
it a brilliant dogfighter was a nice bonus.


What was "wrong" with the F-16 airframe that the F-22 airframe had to be
designed?

Because it has a *huge* radar cross-section in comparison. A Su-27
could lock, launch, and destroy an F-16 before it even knew it was
there. An F-22 is practically undetectable, so can live with the
Su-27. As a bonus it's internal weapons bays have the same capacity as
the F-117, so bingo, the latter is redundant and can be scrapped.


What was "wrong" with the F-22 airframe that the F-35 airframe had to be
designed?

The F-22 costs a fortune; the lightweight single-engined F-35 does
too, just not quite as much. The fact it has bigger bomb bays, a
larger fuel fraction, and a better elec/op sensor suite making it a
better strike platform is a nice bonus. Just so long as nothing flies
up behind it.



What's the problem with designing the airframe once for the current
role of fighters, which hasn't changed much in about 40 years?

Worth noting that both the F-22 and the F-35 (and the Eurofighter for
that matter) have 40-year design lives, though they'll all probably be
scrapped for UAVs long before.

Opposition fighters would be better countered with an airborn equivalant
of the missle frigate; an aircraft loaded with radars, IR sensors, UV
sensors and a pile of air-to-air missles.


LOL have not seen the new Russian AWACs killers? They'd make mincemeat
of such an aircraft. The idea didn't work with the B-17 and it doesn't
work today either.

I doubt there is a 60's era fighter that given current sensors and
missles that wouldn't be perfectly adequate today.

Actually the only point you make that has a grain of truth. A lot of
poorer countries are refitting their older aircraft with modern
sensors and weapons, e.g. the MiG-21 2000. However you can't escape
the high maintenance costs, the poor fuel efficiency, small fuel
fractions etc. etc. of old aircraft. If you remanufacture them (e.g.
Nimrod MR4A) it costs almost as much as new build, but you end up with
a piece of crap compared to a new fighter.

For air-to-air combat the fighter hasn't been much more than a missle
launch platform for many decades.

Ah, but what a difference there is between "platforms". The
Eurofighter, for example, will rely on the long-range Meteor missile
for "first shot/first kill" against the Su-27 and derivatives. The
F-22 will get up close and use medium range AMRAAMs without the Su-27
ever knowing about it. The latter's stealth also means it can
penetrate defences the Eurofigher could not, e.g. Belgrade (only
stealth aircraft visited), or indeed Tehran. Both use sensor fusion
and system automation so the pilot can concentrate on the air battle
rather than flying the plane (something an F-15 driver can only dream
of).

The Su-27, btw, depends on simply having a really big radar and really
fast missiles. Quite a lethal combination when all said and done.



Dan