The promised, more detailed response.
F2A Buffalo: at the time it was ordered it was better than the Grumman F4F alternative. So at the time it was a good aircraft. However the F4F had better growth potential so by the time the US got into the war the Buffalo was obsolescent and on its way out of service. It was put into combat by the US and Dutch as a desperation measure because nothing else was available.
Comparing it to the Bf-109 is a joke. The F2A was designed as a carrier-capable fighter with decent range for Pacific operation. The Bf-109 as a short range fighter designed around European operations. Comparing it to the A6M is a joke - the A6M was something of a surprise to the US, and achieved its initial dominance through massive sacrificing of weight through ditching things like armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Once the US figured out these weaknesses, they were able to adapt tactics of the inferior F4F (Thatch Weave, for instance) to blow them out of the sky.
The F-101 was not ever, as the writer claims, a “fighter-bomber”. Either in design or in actual use. It was designed as a long-range escort to USAF nuclear bombers, then adapted to recce (which it performed well) and interception for the Continental defense role (which it performed very well).
The F-102 (which George W Bush flew in the TX ANG) was put into service as an interim interceptor as the “ultimate” interceptor (F-106) was being developed. Yes, it had a lot of issues, but it wasn’t designed as anything as a quick gap-filling capability. It did deploy to Vietnam and contrary to the writer’s assertions actually performed pretty well. Especially in the ground-attack role - where pilots were able to take out VC campsites by using their infra-red guided AIM-4 Falcom missiles.
The F-104 was a fast, lightweight point-defense fighter mainly designed to protect airfields from inbound enemy bombers. Go in a straight line (as has already been mentioned) very very fast and shoot down the other side. Yeah, like any fast aircraft with low wing loading it was a real challenge to fly (see the B-26 Marauder), but the Taiwanese and Pakistanis used them pretty well in small scale combat engagements. The Italians only retired theirs a couple/few years ago.
The F-105 wasn’t a fighter, despite the “F” designation. It was (the author seems to admit) pretty much a fast, one-way tactical nuclear bomber. Saying it sucked because it was used in a war (Vietnam) it wasn’t designed at all for is patently unfair. By the end of the war it had actually proven itself pretty adaptable to the SEAD/Wild Weasel role - it was really the first effective dedicated counter-radar platform.
The MiG-23 was a small, lightweight fighter/fighter-bomber (in the MiG-27 version) that used variable geometry wings to convey better short/rough field characteristics. It was the direct successor to the MiG-21. The writer really shows his ignorance here in saying that it was designed to counter the F-14. That’s a massive amount of Barbara Streisand right there. Yes, it was a crappy aircraft - but it was also designed (much like the F-105) to have an exceedingly short lifespan in actual combat in an equation that favored early and overwhelming quantity over smaller numbers of quality. Which pretty much sums up the WarPac vs. NATO paradigms.
As to the “dishonorable mention” category the guy includes the F-4 Phantom???? That pretty much crushes his credibility to dust. The F-111 had some initial teething problems, but really turned into a very, very good interdiction and (for the Aussies) recce platform. The Naval version would have performed the mission it was designed for (air-to-air missile truck designed to take down Soviet bombers as far away from the carrier as possible) pretty well too - but thanks to the experience with Vietnam the mission changed. The Bf-110 (heavy two-engined fighter) and the Defiant (big heavy turret with four machine guns, but no forward-firing guns - stupidstupidstupid) both deserve to be on the actual list, imho. As does the Yak-38 Forger.
Finally, regarding the F-35, I’ll make the point I usually make which is that it is NOT a “fighter”. It’s a stealthy light-strike platform, with a respectable head-on air-to-air engagement capability. It should be seen as the direct successor to the F-117 and A-7 and something of an improvement upon the AV-8B ... but not as a successor to the fighter-side capabilities of either the F-16 or the F/A-18.
It’s in threads like this where I learn just how little I know about military aircraft, well except for the non-fighter RC-135. And even then I know just where I sat on it and little else....
Tank, thanks for a detailed reply to Sir Napshot.
I will add, in the category of ‘was there a post-fighter life’ that both the Bf-110 and the BP Defiant ended up doing fairly well performing as nightfighers, especially the 110.
Agree.
“. . .but not as a successor to the fighter-side capabilities of either the F-16 or the F/A-18”
Should add the A-10 to your list, as it is supposed to perform the CAS role (”replace” the Hog).
The Luftwaffe made the wrong choice in selecting the Bf 110 over the Focke-Wulf Fw 187. If the Fw 187 had gotten the Daimler-Benz DB 601 engines originally promised for the plane, the Fw 187 would have a top speed just over 400 mph—phenomenal for 1939! It would have out-run even the Spitfre Mk. I/1A models, and that would have given a lot of problems for the RAF, especially given the Fw 187 had a combat radius from French bases as far north as Newcastle upon Tyne.
Robert McNamara wanted the USAF and USN to share a common aircraft to save costs. The Navy never wanted the F-111 because they didn't want a USAF airplane.
In an attempt to kill the project the USN insisted that the design have a swing-wing, side-by-side seating, escape capsule and an internal bomb bay.
The USAF had no need for a tactical fighter-bomber with the above specs. They wanted tandem seating with conventional ejector seats, external bomb loads and conventional.
But, the USN's insistance on the above feature set meant the aircraft would never meet the weight goals they, themselves, set. Since it never met the USN goals, the F-111B was canceled.
Because the politicians were in charge, they went ahead with the F-111A and made the USAF integrate it into service.
Good and accurate summary.
Note that this “expert” author never flew a fighter.
And the F-16 is an adequate match for the F-15 in the air-to-air role, and also is superlative in the air-to-ground role, which the F-15 does not do.
Yes, the F-15 Strike Eagle is a bomber, but it is different than the C/D versions and less maneuverable with the extra weight.
Although as yet untested in combat and its capabilities still mostly classified, the F-22 is the most superior airplane ever built. Be glad its on our side, if in too few numbers.
If the F-104 was so horrible as the author claims then why is it still around? The Italian Air Force and NASA retired theirs in 2004. I saw a NASA one fly almost daily at Edwards AFB in the late 80s. The current privately owned ones still flying have had to reduce their air show appearances as they have operational needs still. Looks like they need more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfighters_Inc
Not bad for a death trap.
The Buffalo had problems above and beyond the actual aircraft.
Poor management and a contentious union (the UAW) doomed Brewster and its products. There were strikes and acts of sabotage by the union, and when they did work, there were serious quality control problems.
Brewster was the only aircraft manufacturer to go out of business during WWII. It was taken over by the Navy and was operated as the Naval Air Modification Unit (NAMU).
Did you mean high wing loading?
The Me-110 turned into a good nightfighter.