Ideal USAF air superiority fighter for the Vietnam War.

[Scott Kenny]

Spey performed worse than J79 on UK Phantoms except on takeoff from carriers. J79 is our option.

How much of that bad rep is because of trying to land at very high power settings due to BLC, and how much of that is compressor stalls etc while maneuvering?

 

[F-2]

Spey performed worse than J79 on UK Phantoms except on takeoff from carriers. J79 is our option.

Didn’t a lot of that have to do with increased drag do to aircraft modifications? According to this it had better acceleration at 36,000 feet.

That’s not to say it’s the right chose but I have heard the JH-7 is surprisingly maneuverable for what it is.

 

[MrTopaz]

The North American pre-NAGPAW designs were remarkably F-15 looking. Although, they were early 50s fighter bomber proposals, and as such were probably nuclear strike oriented, and heavier than we'd like. Also, more likely than not, they wouldn't be all that maneuverable. But if we're just spitballing, a hypothetical NAGPAW or MX2212 design might be lightened to the point where air superiority was on the table. ASP #4 has a nice little drawing of the MX2212 design that looks a bit like an early 50s, single tailed proto-F-15, so it's got my vote on looks alone.

 

[Rule of cool]

What weapons would this fighter carry? If its the same as were available in reality then even an ideal fighter's pilot would need special training to use them effectively. If this is the case then even the F4 would be fine given how ineffective USAF fighter pilot training was in Vietnam.

However, what is possible in 1965? Even if the need for dogfighting was foreseen was technology up to the task in 1965.

I read the Ault Report a while ago and it put a heavy focus on the deficiencies is the missile pipeline. How much difference would it make to focus heavily on the robustness and reliability of existing missile, regardless of their ostensible limitations?

 

[Scott Kenny]

What weapons would this fighter carry? If its the same as were available in reality then even an ideal fighter's pilot would need special training to use them effectively. If this is the case then even the F4 would be fine given how ineffective USAF fighter pilot training was in Vietnam.

However, what is possible in 1965? Even if the need for dogfighting was foreseen was technology up to the task in 1965.

I read the Ault Report a while ago and it put a heavy focus on the deficiencies is the missile pipeline. How much difference would it make to focus heavily on the robustness and reliability of existing missile, regardless of their ostensible limitations?

I'd give it space for 8x Sidewinders, as a minimum. Might do something evil like a triple ejector rack that gets fitted with Crusader Y racks on each of the 3 points, so 6x Sidewinders per wing hardpoint. That'd give most planes 12x Sidewinders.

Sidewinders still had issues, but were the easiest to use of the missiles available. And getting more in use would likely (hopefully?) get improved seekers sooner.

 

[uk 75]

Taking a plane already in service could the USAF have done anything with the T38 Talon to get a quick and dirty dogfighter for Vietnam?

Northrop T-38 Talon - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott Kenny]

Taking a plane already in service could the USAF have done anything with the T38 Talon to get a quick and dirty dogfighter for Vietnam?

Northrop T-38 Talon - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

They did. The F-5.

Though it was more a cheap and easy to maintain aircraft for "less advanced allies" to fly than it was a USAF plane, the USAF did fly some 6 squadrons (mostly as aggressors, but two squadrons flew in Vietnam, 1965-1967)

 

[uk 75]

I knew about the F5 "Freedom Fighter" it just seemed that the extra space in the T38 could be used in some way.
The F5 served for years in lieu of Migs for aggressor squadrons. It could carry 2 Sidewinders. I suppose to be effective it would need a better armament?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I knew about the F5 "Freedom Fighter" it just seemed that the extra space in the T38 could be used in some way.
The F5 served for years in lieu of Migs for aggressor squadrons. It could carry 2 Sidewinders. I suppose to be effective it would need a better armament?

Just give it another pair of sidewinders, which it would need to be modified to carry. 2x or 3x drop tanks, Sidewinders on stations 1, 2, 6, and 7 (wingtips and two outer underwing pylons). You could even make it 6x Sidewinders if you're willing to go without the extra fuel tanks under the wings. But that leaves a very small combat radius, only about 120nmi.

Oh, will probably need an actual radar, though, the base F5A and T38 don't have radar. At all.

 

[Apophenia]

Just give it another pair of sidewinders, which it would need to be modified to carry. 2x or 3x drop tanks, Sidewinders on stations 1, 2, 6, and 7 (wingtips and two outer underwing pylons). You could even make it 6x Sidewinders if you're willing to go without the extra fuel tanks under the wings. But that leaves a very small combat radius, only about 120nmi.

Oh, will probably need an actual radar, though, the base F5A and T38 don't have radar. At all.

F-5A could already carry three drops tanks (albeit usually for ferry purposes). For 6 x AIM-9s, you could create a dual-missile outer pylon (akin to the inverted 'Y' pylons on the F-100).

As for radar, perhaps only gun-ranging kit is needed? (The only VPAF day fighter with search radar was the MiG-21.)

 

[Scott Kenny]

F-5A could already carry three drops tanks (albeit usually for ferry purposes). For 6 x AIM-9s, you could create a dual-missile outer pylon (akin to the inverted 'Y' pylons on the F-100).

Yes, that would be very nice. And if the wingtip pylons could also take the weight of a Y rack and 2x Sidewinders, that'd give you 8x total, plus all 3 drop tanks. Or 10-12x if you put the Y ranks on all 4 underwing pylons, drop tank on centerline. 10x Sidewinders if you have single mounts on the wingtips, 12x if you can get Y racks to work there.

As for radar, perhaps only gun-ranging kit is needed? (The only VPAF day fighter with search radar was the MiG-21.)

If they don't have an AWACS to help guide them in, they're going to need better than a gun-ranging radar.

 

[Apophenia]

... If they don't have an AWACS to help guide them in, they're going to need better than a gun-ranging radar.

Agreed. I'm just not sure what US radar set was small enough to go into the nose of an F-5 in that late '60s timeframe.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'd give it space for 8x Sidewinders, as a minimum. Might do something evil like a triple ejector rack that gets fitted with Crusader Y racks on each of the 3 points, so 6x Sidewinders per wing hardpoint. That'd give most planes 12x Sidewinders.

Sidewinders still had issues, but were the easiest to use of the missiles available. And getting more in use would likely (hopefully?) get improved seekers sooner.

That's a lot of weight to be carting around, and primarily because of failures of training and reliability. It would be better to make the sidewinder twice as reliable and carry half as many of them.

BTW I had a bit of a look at the Ault Report again today, it's a great read.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's a lot of weight to be carting around, and primarily because of failures of training and reliability. It would be better to make the sidewinder twice as reliable and carry half as many of them.

BTW I had a bit of a look at the Ault Report again today, it's a great read.

It is a lot of weight. some 2400lbs of missiles alone, not counting the weight of the racks (and they're NOT light, could be 1000lbs each pretty easily).

In all honesty, with the usual 5min combat figure, you probably won't shoot more than 4 times. How many missiles do you expect to shoot each time? Edit: when I play flight sims, I usually double-tap my heat seekers. So I'd still want 8x Sidewinders on my plane.

 

[tomo pauk]

Taking a plane already in service could the USAF have done anything with the T38 Talon to get a quick and dirty dogfighter for Vietnam?

Northrop T-38 Talon - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

They did. The F-5.

Though it was more a cheap and easy to maintain aircraft for "less advanced allies" to fly than it was a USAF plane, the USAF did fly some 6 squadrons (mostly as aggressors, but two squadrons flew in Vietnam, 1965-1967)

Was the F-5 a better fighter for the US need in Vietnam than the F-4?

 

[Desertfox]

The F5D has twice the range, twice the fuel, 50% more thrust, a higher T/W, much lower wing loading than the F-5, better radar, and had flown significantly before. Also was designed to take the J79. It's got everything you need for air-superiority and was even designed to use ARH AAMs...

 

[BlackBat242]

Spey performed worse than J79 on UK Phantoms except on takeoff from carriers. J79 is our option.

How much of that bad rep is because of trying to land at very high power settings due to BLC, and how much of that is compressor stalls etc while maneuvering?

Didn’t a lot of that have to do with increased drag do to aircraft modifications? According to this it had better acceleration at 36,000 feet.

The Spey Phantom worked great for take-off, low-level maneuvering, and landing.

Where it had issues was with higher speeds, where the increased drag from the wider fuselage* began to make itself felt... and at higher altitudes, where the Spey lost thrust faster than the J79**.


* To enclose the larger intakes and intake ducting required for the higher air-mass-flow of the Spey as well as the larger diameter of the engine itself.

** All turbine engines lose some thrust at high altitudes, but turbojets lose a smaller percentage than do turbofans. This places a turbofan at a disadvantage when trying to reach high speed at high altitude when compared to a turbojet of equal sea-level thrust output. The Spey produced more sea-level thrust than the J79 - but as the aircraft neared its combat ceiling its thrust actually dropped below that of the J79.

 

[Archibald]

I want an alternate Vietnam where USAF buys F-4K and F-104S : from Great Britain and from Italy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Was the F-5 a better fighter for the US need in Vietnam than the F-4?

Debatable, which is kinda the point.

The F4 could carry a load of bombs and the full AAM load. An F-5 is either carrying more than 2x AAMs or is carrying 2x AAMs and bombs.

We generally know that the F5 is a maneuverable and hard to see aircraft, witness the use of F5s in aggressor squadrons.

I think that the biggest stumbling block to the F5 as the USAF fighter is that it was picked up as something for less advanced allies to fly. If the RCAF was insulted when they replaced their fighters with CF5s, I can only imagine how insulted the USAF would be.

 

[aim9xray]

Ahem. Y'all are overthinking the problem. Think inside the box...

- Suggest circa 1966, Johnson and McNamara grow a pair; delegate authority, change ROE and allow aggressive BVR engagements. No VID requirement and no "knife-fighting in a phone booth".

- Or... issue a seven-day demarche to alcon; and then Linebacker the VPAF airfields and all two (both of them) rail lines coming in from China. Give the Navy a piece and mine Haiphong Harbor. What fighter problem? No new US fighters or tech needed. Don't fight the VPAF game.

- Or just declare victory and go home. Mayhaps the Great Society didn't need to pick fights with what were considered Chinese Communist proxies. Especially as the Great Leap Forward progressed.

As Mighty Joe Cool asked on Yankee Station, "Are we trying to shave a few points, or throw the game?"

 

[Archibald]

South Vietnam used both F-5A and F-5E (from memory). F-5 however had ultra short range and no aerial refueling capability, so it wouldn't fit along F-4s and F-105s as used in Vietnam.
But other than that - indeed it was the Agressors MiG-21 lookalike. Just like Skyhawks = MiG-17s and later, F-21 Kfir = MiG-23s.

By the way, MiG-21s and F-5Es clashed in 1977: in the Ogaden wars.

https://www.youtube.com/@showtime112/videos

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu4Uny_SkXs

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Klz2u7uEQ

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAgAUP32rwA

 

[Yellow Palace]

- Or... issue a seven-day demarche to alcon; and then Linebacker the VPAF airfields and all two (both of them) rail lines coming in from China. Give the Navy a piece and mine Haiphong Harbor. What fighter problem? No new US fighters or tech needed. Don't fight the VPAF game.

TBH, this is the winning strategy for the US, and 1966 is about as late as it can be done and actually work. It's also what the USAF was advocating in 1961, when it would have stopped the war before it had even begun.

Or just declare victory and go home. Mayhaps the Great Society didn't need to pick fights with what were considered Chinese Communist proxies. Especially as the Great Leap Forward progressed.

A variation on this was the other option the USAF presented. There's a quote from (IIRC) Curtis LeMay to the effect that the US should either do what was necessary to win the war, or not join it at all.

 

[datafuser]

Ahem. Y'all are overthinking the problem. Think inside the box...

- Suggest circa 1966, Johnson and McNamara grow a pair; delegate authority, change ROE and allow aggressive BVR engagements. No VID requirement and no "knife-fighting in a phone booth".

- Or... issue a seven-day demarche to alcon; and then Linebacker the VPAF airfields and all two (both of them) rail lines coming in from China. Give the Navy a piece and mine Haiphong Harbor. What fighter problem? No new US fighters or tech needed. Don't fight the VPAF game.

- Or just declare victory and go home. Mayhaps the Great Society didn't need to pick fights with what were considered Chinese Communist proxies. Especially as the Great Leap Forward progressed.

As Mighty Joe Cool asked on Yankee Station, "Are we trying to shave a few points, or throw the game?"

They did consider going home in 1966.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume IV, Vietnam, 1966 - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

109. Notes of Meeting1​

Washington, April 2, 1966, 1:30 p.m.

PRESENT​

• President, Rusk, McNamara, Rostow, Moyers, Valenti
• President wanted the following done:

1. Invite publishers and editors to state dinners—and have them in earlier to lunch with the President and Rusk and McNamara.

Perhaps Rusk and McNamara could fly out and meet with various editorial boards—Louisville Courier Journal Times—the night newspapers—St. Louis Post Dispatch—Providence Journal.

Wants research done: in other emergency periods—isnʼt our position much better overall, economic, etc., than in other such periods.

On Vietnam:

1. Make every effort to keep Ky. But be ready to make terrible choice. Perhaps take a stand in Thailand—or take someone else other than Ky.

2. McNamara said what happens to I Corps is not as important as to what happens to other corps. Thinks we ought to get rid of Tri Quang.

President said there are two basic things we need to do:

1. What do we do to preserve Ky? Thinks we ought to preserve him if possible.

2. Prepare fallback position. Involves talking to Buddhists and if necessary, get out of I Corps area and even Vietnam.

McNamara said Lodge ought to have it out with Tri Quang. Quang needs to know what situation is and how prepared we are to clear out of I Corps area. We need to know if Quang really wants us out—for if he does, we better get out now. But McNamara thinks that Quang believes that we are committed.

President said to send Lodge a cable telling him to get in touch with Quang now and get tough with him.2
[Here follows discussion of Indira Gandhi.]

1. Source: Johnson Library, Meeting Notes File. No classification marking. Valenti took the notes. The meeting was held in the family dining room on the second floor of the White House.↩
2. Telegram 2950 to Saigon, April 2, passed on the “suggestions” that came out of this 1:30 meeting. Rusk asked Lodge to consider meeting again with Tri Quang “to disabuse him of idea that the American commitment will tolerate division or discord from within or will permit Communist leaders or sympathizers to achieve their purposes through our leniency.” (Ibid., National Security File, Country File, Vietnam, NODIS, vol. 3)↩

 

[Rule of cool]

What about guns for this mooted fighter? I've read that the podded 20mm Vulcan used by RAF Phantoms lacked the hitting power of the 30mm Aden used by the Lightning. Assuming a 'from scratch' fighter was going to be designed would it be better if it used a larger calibre gun than the Vulcan? Would a single barrel revolver cannon do the job, or are gatling guns the go?

 

[MrTopaz]

What about guns for this mooted fighter? I've read that the podded 20mm Vulcan used by RAF Phantoms lacked the hitting power of the 30mm Aden used by the Lightning. Assuming a 'from scratch' fighter was going to be designed would it be better if it used a larger calibre gun than the Vulcan? Would a single barrel revolver cannon do the job, or are gatling guns the go?

Did the US ever use a 30mm cannon for air to air? Obviously the warthog got one, but apples and oranges. I know GE offered a 30mm rotary cannon, but I don't know that it never got into service, and I don't know about any other examples.

Obviously, if we're positing significant changes, why not posit a caliber increase? We know that they were looking at something with a little more oomf in the early stages of the FX program that lead to the F-15, and would eventually step up to 25mm when it came time to choose a gun for the F-35, so it's not insane. But for some reason, that just feels like a bridge too far for me. Even in some postulated alt history scenario where the USAF takes a completely different philosophy to air combat and pilot training, two immense changes in their own right. But I can't pretend there's nothing to the idea.

I have no idea if there's any established consensus on how the Air Force felt about single barrel cannons, but given the fact that the French and the Brits used them extensively through the '90s with no apparent hang ups, and the USAF still chose to stick with gatling style guns for their fighters, we can probably infer that at the very least there was some strong institutional inertia regarding what kind of guns should go in fighters. Which I find a little funny, given how resistant they were to putting guns in fighters in the first place.

 

[H_K]

Grumman Super Tiger is/was a star of many what-if scenarios.

That would be my vote too. As @overscan (PaulMM) said, J79 was the best option at the time, and the Super Tiger was available almost off the shelf.

Couple of things to address though:

- Smoky J79s… could that be fixed earlier than historical?
- Guns… replace each Colt Mk 12 with 30mm DEFA or ADEN… but would the USAF ever agree?
- Better missile options than AIM-9B… ideally the USN’s AIM-9C/D combo with the bigger motor & warhead, improved maneuverability, and better radar & cooled IR seekers?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Bluntly, I think it's the Vulcan or nothing for a gun. Nobody is going to want to spend the money on a new gun.

The problem with doing better than the AIM-9B is that the Air Force only gets Sidewinders at all around the time the AIM-9D enters service with the Navy, and not very long before the AIM-9E shows up.

Smoky J79s could perhaps be fixed earlier, but frankly all jet engines of the era produced smoke, and the fix was a fairly significant engine redesign.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Smoky J79s could perhaps be fixed earlier, but frankly all jet engines of the era produced smoke, and the fix was a fairly significant engine redesign.

Engines running hotter was the main fix for excess smoke.

 

[Rule of cool]

I agree about the Vulcan, I can't imagine the benefits of a different gun make it worthwhile to develop when the vulcan is virtually new.

IIUC the USAF used the Aim9b in Vietnam on F4C and F104s from 1965, and Aim 4 9n the F4D from mid 1967 with the Aim9e becoming available in late 1968. In that situation the USAF getting something better should be useful.

That said I'm pretty sure that pilots trained in air superiority, F4C with a gun pod and paying attention to the quality of the missiles would be more than sufficient to get good results.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Bluntly, I think it's the Vulcan or nothing for a gun. Nobody is going to want to spend the money on a new gun.

Agreed. If you physically have room for the Vulcan, run it.

M39s aren't terrible, but the Colt Mk12s suck (well, the feeds do, which means the guns suck). If anything, on a Super Tiger or whatever that originally came with Mk12s, swap the Mk12s for M39s.

That said I'm pretty sure that pilots trained in air superiority, F4C with a gun pod and paying attention to the quality of the missiles would be more than sufficient to get good results.

No, the gun pods were terrible for air-to-air. The recoil would misalign the pod on the pylon, messing up any attempts at boresighting the guns on the HUD. Walk your tracers into the target time!

 

[Rule of cool]

No, the gun pods were terrible for air-to-air. The recoil would misalign the pod on the pylon, messing up any attempts at boresighting the guns on the HUD. Walk your tracers into the target time!

Yes, I'm aware of their inaccuracy but given the choice of that and no gun the experienced USAF fighter wing COs chose the gun pod.

My concern with a bespoke, 1965 state of the art, air superiority fighter is that the gun is the only weapon that would work. The Ault Report stated that missiles coming out of the factory of low quality because they'd been built to a budget, and low quality meant low reliability.

 

[Desertfox]

Y'all are still sleeping on the F5D Skylancer. The F8U is considered the best dogfighter in the war and the F5D beats it in all the metrics. It's lighter, better T/W, lower wing loading, insane climb rate, longer range + external tanks, and better visibility, with the same weapon load + Sparrow II (if it's made to work). Throw in a J79 and a bubble canopy and you'd basically have a pseudo F-16.

 

[Archibald]

and you'd basically have a pseudo F-16XL

Fixed a typo. Readily agree that Skylancer was a potentially awesome flying machine.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Y'all are still sleeping on the F5D Skylancer. The F8U is considered the best dogfighter in the war and the F5D beats it in all the metrics. It's lighter, better T/W, lower wing loading, insane climb rate, longer range + external tanks, and better visibility, with the same weapon load + Sparrow II (if it's made to work). Throw in a J79 and a bubble canopy and you'd basically have a pseudo F-16.

The US Navy rejected it in 1956. There's no way the USAF is buying an aircraft the Navy didn't want, no matter what the numbers look like, or the reason why it was rejected.

 

[SK2]

South Vietnam used both F-5A and F-5E (from memory). F-5 however had ultra short range and no aerial refueling capability, so it wouldn't fit along F-4s and F-105s as used in Vietnam.

The F-5C used by USAF in Vietnam do have air refueling probe, so do some other F-5 users

 

[BB1984]

Ref guns, pretty much agree with a few folks comments already:

• The Vulcan was fine but needed to be designed in
• If you can't fit a Vulcan, then the M39 is going to be an OK weapon
• The USAF, in particular, was not going to 30mm: the Vulcan program examined both smaller (.60 cal) and larger (27mm) options and the USAF settled on 20mm as the optimum for combining good muzzle velocity and hitting power. Vietnam era, this was all recent history; reinventing that wheel would be a tough sell.

Ref airplanes

• It's been mentioned earlier in the thread, but the Crusader III seems like a great off the shelf option (assuming they had the ammunition feed problems from the Crusader fixed). If the Crusader III could take the M39, that would be even better. The reasons the Crusader III wasn't adopted (BVR workload and relative lack of air to ground capability) don't apply in our scenario and it's superior maneuverability (relative to the F-4) would matter a lot.
• The USAF could certainly have made do with the F-104 as an alternative: it was the preferred WVR dogfighter out of the Featherduster trials in 1968, which featured multiple types of contemporary fighters.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

A Vulcan type rotary cannon like that T212 which presumably used similar ammo to the 30mm ADEN and DEFA series revolver cannons wouldn't be a bad weapon, but the USAF was already firmly invested in the 20mm by the time the Vietnam War was intensifying. The USN was also switching over from their previous 20mm cannons like the Mk.12 to the M61 Vulcan. The USAF preferred the higher velocity of the 20mm and I'm sure an ammo drum of the same size could carry more 20mm than 30mm. Perhaps you could make a useful podded gun system with the T212 that would be good for spraying a lot of HE shells onto ground targets.

If you did want to make a useful improvement to the M61A1 and M39 you could introduced 20mm ammo using projectiles that are better optimized ballistically. At an earlier point the USAF had wanted that but changed their minds on the basis of cost and that air combat was expected to be at high altitudes where air resistance is low. As a result the 20mm M50 series of ammo wasn't great at low altitudes. Considering how much 20mm ammo was used on ground targets alone getting low drag projectiles sooner would help. There was some interest and testing of this during the war but by the time they could have made that change the US was withdrawing from the war. The idea didn't come up again in US service until the later part of the '80s with the PGU-28 cartridge.

As far as aircraft though could something like the Lockheed CL-1200 be pursued by an earlier date? It seems like that would have fixed several of the flaws the F-104 had. With drop tanks it might have good enough range to escort strikes into North Vietnam. I still think the F-4, particularly the F-4E, would be very useful to the USAF so ultimately I don't think it would be good if they lost out on that.

One option I haven't seen brought up in the thread is doing more with the F-106. While it was an interceptor pilots credited it with good performance, often being able to best F-4s in mock dogfights. It would need some improvements, particularly those additions that were done later by the "Six Shooter" project. You'd also want to upgrade the AIM-4F and AIM-4G with the laser proximity fuze that was used on the XAIM-4H. Having only four missiles might be a problem however. Maybe you could devise a setup so the wing stations used for the external fuel tanks could carry AIM-9s, but you wouldn't want to lose out on the fuel those tanks gave.

 

[Desertfox]

The US Navy rejected it in 1956. There's no way the USAF is buying an aircraft the Navy didn't want, no matter what the numbers look like, or the reason why it was rejected.

The whole point of this thread is "What would be the best option?", not "What is the most likely to happen?". The Skylancer is the best option. The Navy didn't want it because it was too similar to the F8U and Vought needed the contract more than Douglas. It wouldn't be the first time the USAF bought a Navy plane... see B-66 also by Douglas and also in this exact time period. And the Navy rejecting it would have likely made the USAF like it even more. Note we are supplementing/replacing the F-4 which is also another Navy turned USAF plane and how most of the proposals in this thread are for F8Us or F11Fs, both Navy planes.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

- Guns… replace each Colt Mk 12 with 30mm DEFA or ADEN… but would the USAF ever agree?

There was interest in using the GAU-9 which used 30x173mm versus the shorter cartridges of the DEFA/ADEN and was an adapted Oerlikon KCA revolver autocannon.

From what I've read on it, the purpose was for improved air-to-ground performance with it being an alternative to the more famous GAU-8.

All in all moving from 20mm to 30mm would've been a marginal improvement at best for air combat, given the predominance of missile kills in the conflict even by aircraft equiped with guns.

 

[H_K]

The Skylancer is the best option.

How did the F5D Skylancer and F11F-1F Super Tiger compare?

From what I gather the Skylancer was bigger and heavier, 19,000lbs operating empty (with pilot, guns & ammo) vs 14,500lbs for an F11F Tiger. The Super Tiger’s might then have been around 15,000lbs.

The Skylancer had the benefit of 35% more internal fuel, and maybe could have been lightened a little bit with a simpler weapons system, but for the tactical dayfighter / light attack role I’m not sure what makes it superior to the Super Tiger?