For those of us who flew them, I found them a NIGHTMARE. Serious controllability issues (which resulted in an additional huge amount of money being spent to make them stable) Constant engine flame-outs (or complete destruction of the engine that caused many losses of aircraft), avionics failures, defensive packages that were easily defeated, constant problems with the swept-wing (mechanically and the computer control), etc etc. NONE of these issues were because of the USAF maintenenace guys (very dedicated people, who were stuck working on something that was plagued with designed problems).

Up until just a few years ago, my basic Palm Pilot had more computing power than the entire package on-board one these monstrosities! An avionics and computer upgrade made them better, but I was already flying KC-135R refuelers by then. Baxx, could probably give you a better insight to the maintenance nightmare, but out of the 7 we had for our squadron, usually only 2 were flyable at any given time.

A HUGE waste of tax payer's money for a plane that the USAF ABSOLUTELY DID NOT WANT OR NEED. Politics...the senator that finally pushed them down our throats happened to be from the home-state that the initial B-1A and B-1B models were built.

I remember reading, many a long year ago, that the swing-wings on the F-111's just =did not work=. One wag commented that the only good thing about the F-111's was that the damnfool Russians went and copied it! Here's how piss-poor the design was: an aircraft designed as a fighter wound up as a strategic nuclear bomber... :eek: Thank God an admiral (forget his last name, his first name was Tom) went before Congress and testified, "Senator, there isn't enough thrust in Christendom to get that thing off a flight deck."

Ahhhh...the flying pig.....a little before my time, but I remember my Uncles (both USAF pilots, too) telling me stories about them. The perfect swept wing aircraft ever made was the F-14 (all models). My father flew them for many years and loved them. I am a "heavy guy" (ie I fly large multi-engined aircraft) and don't particuliarly like fighters, but the Tomcat......good stuff.

Ahhhh...the flying pig.....a little before my time, but I remember my Uncles (both USAF pilots, too) telling me stories about them. The perfect swept wing aircraft ever made was the F-14 (all models). My father flew them for many years and loved them. I am a "heavy guy" (ie I fly large multi-engined aircraft) and don't particuliarly like fighters, but the Tomcat......good stuff.

Flyboy, I recall reading the F-14 was underpowered at first, but the later versions put fear in Russian admirals' hearts. Do you have any good inside info about the F-18's?

Ahhhh...the flying pig.....a little before my time, but I remember my Uncles (both USAF pilots, too) telling me stories about them. The perfect swept wing aircraft ever made was the F-14 (all models). My father flew them for many years and loved them. I am a "heavy guy" (ie I fly large multi-engined aircraft) and don't particuliarly like fighters, but the Tomcat......good stuff.

Love the F-14!

Love the F-14!

Jimbo, wouldn't we have to say the most successful American fighter of the 70's was the F-16? Last I heard, the kill-ratio was 90-0. And on the topic of fighter aircraft, while I respect Ralph Peters mucho, I don't understand his animus against the F-22. Overpriced? Sure. What government project isn't? But the good old F-15s and F-16s of 1970s vintage are just =wearing out=. As I understand it, you can't refurbish a fighter as you can, say, a B-52--the high-acceleration stresses on the airframe prohibit that. To my way of thinking, if we're gonna pay through the nose (which we will anyway), let's get the best aircraft that American technology and industry can provide for our fighter jocks. Let the potential bad guys know that if you take to the air against the USAF, =you are a dead man=. Such is my simple take, anyway.

Jimbo, wouldn't we have to say the most successful American fighter of the 70's was the F-16? Last I heard, the kill-ratio was 90-0. And on the topic of fighter aircraft, while I respect Ralph Peters mucho, I don't understand his animus against the F-22. Overpriced? Sure. What government project isn't? But the good old F-15s and F-16s of 1970s vintage are just =wearing out=. As I understand it, you can't refurbish a fighter as you can, say, a B-52--the high-acceleration stresses on the airframe prohibit that. To my way of thinking, if we're gonna pay through the nose (which we will anyway), let's get the best aircraft that American technology and industry can provide for our fighter jocks. Let the potential bad guys know that if you take to the air against the USAF, =you are a dead man=. Such is my simple take, anyway.

Ahhh....the F-16.....known throughout the USAF as the "lawn dart". Think of what an F-16 would like going straight nose down into the ground and what a real lawn dart looks like sticking in the ground--you'll get the idea) Although I'd agree with their "fight" record, they also have the highest non-wartime, non-pilot error crash rate of any fighter the US has ever deployed. Even now, they still have "mysterious" unrecoverable flight control problems (espeicailly rudder hard overs - a killer in any plane), engine problems that can't be resolevd or recovered in flight (remember F-16s only have one).

I have never flown the F-18 or the F/A-18C , but all the people I know who do swear by them. EXTEMELY reliable (so much so the manufacturer was confinced the USAF was not properly reporting problems). The F-18 is coming up this year more it's first major upgrade.....looks like a killer package.

Of course, the F-22....I have gotten a ride in one of those at Tyndall AFB, FL.....whew!....is all I can say....that's going to be a major monster if the manufacturer can work out the bugs....

Ahhh....the F-16.....known throughout the USAF as the "lawn dart". Think of what an F-16 would like going straight nose down into the ground and what a real lawn dart looks like sticking in the ground--you'll get the idea) Although I'd agree with their "fight" record, they also have the highest non-wartime, non-pilot error crash rate of any fighter the US has ever deployed. Even now, they still have "mysterious" unrecoverable flight control problems (espeicailly rudder hard overs - a killer in any plane), engine problems that can't be resolevd or recovered in flight (remember F-16s only have one).

I have never flown the F-18 or the F/A-18C , but all the people I know who do swear by them. EXTEMELY reliable (so much so the manufacturer was confinced the USAF was not properly reporting problems). The F-18 is coming up this year more it's first major upgrade.....looks like a killer package.

Of course, the F-22....I have gotten a ride in one of those at Tyndall AFB, FL.....whew!....is all I can say....that's going to be a major monster if the manufacturer can work out the bugs....

That's interesting info, Flyboy. I thought the F-104 Starfighters had the worst record of non-wartime, non-pilot error factor crashes. But--and this is a civilian talkin' here, so bear with my ignorance--wasn't that because the Luftwaffe loaded up the aircraft with missions and equipment the airframe was never designed to take? The original mission being to put cruel hurt on Soviet bombers coming over the pole, and later for anything else? (I find this kind of discussion fascinating, Flyboy. Your inside-info is =much= appreciated.) And, oh, yeah--does the USAF fly the F-18? My impression was, that's strictly a carrier plane.

I guess I should have said I was strictly adhering to US operated aircraft for our talks. You are correct about the German version of the F-104. They tried to use the plane as a strike fighter instead of as an air-to-air and the airframe just couldn't handle it. There were many reports of over g-ing the plane and them literally disintergrating in-flight. I called a buddy of mine in Gielenkirchen AB (NATO air base operated by the Germans) and he filled me in on that information.

The USAF does have a large number special F-18s used for specialty missions (not so much Spec Ops, but other types of special missions). The F-15 C,D,J and all models of the F-16s still carry the role of the major SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense), Strikes, Intercepts, AAs etc, but the F-18s are helping in some of the more "special" missions. From what we hear in the aircrew community, the USAF is holding out for the F-22 instead of getting major numbers of F18s. In the long haul, the F-22 will be more versatile and cheaper.

The F-22 will be more easy to intergrate into what we call the "Iron Triangle". This is composed of three very special,black ops, specialty planes deployed into conflicts. An E-3 Sentry (AWACs), a Rivet-Joint (aka RJ) and an E-8 JSTARs. These three planes do very distinct and different missions and link together to control and command airspace and ground theaters.

I guess I should have said I was strictly adhering to US operated aircraft for our talks. You are correct about the German version of the F-104. They tried to use the plane as a strike fighter instead of as an air-to-air and the airframe just couldn't handle it. There were many reports of over g-ing the plane and them literally disintergrating in-flight. I called a buddy of mine in Gielenkirchen AB (NATO air base operated by the Germans) and he filled me in on that information.

The USAF does have a large number special F-18s used for specialty missions (not so much Spec Ops, but other types of special missions). The F-15 C,D,J and all models of the F-16s still carry the role of the major SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense), Strikes, Intercepts, AAs etc, but the F-18s are helping in some of the more "special" missions. From what we hear in the aircrew community, the USAF is holding out for the F-22 instead of getting major numbers of F18s. In the long haul, the F-22 will be more versatile and cheaper.

The F-22 will be more easy to intergrate into what we call the "Iron Triangle". This is composed of three very special,black ops, specialty planes deployed into conflicts. An E-3 Sentry (AWACs), a Rivet-Joint (aka RJ) and an E-8 JSTARs. These three planes do very distinct and different missions and link together to control and command airspace and ground theaters.

Again, Flyboy, thanks for the inside scoop. Always like to get the latest on Air Force aircraft and doctrine. (Hey, when I was a kid, I spent many, many happy hours assembling and painting Ravell models--everything from P-51 Mustangs to F-89 Scorpions to the Navy's strange and wonderful Cutlass. My interest in airpower hasn't changed much, if at all, I guess.)