Dr. Roper wants a return to the Century Series days

F-101 was evolved to F-110.

The "F-110" was derived from a different lineage (Demon, not the XF-88/F-101).

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=54161&start=55

And the F-110 was actually very successful.

The "F-110" was nothing more than a number slapped on the side of an F-4C Phantom II for about five minutes. The USAF didn't call it the F-110. Nor was it one of the "Century series". And yes, the F-4 was very successful.

My apologies, I threw in F-110 with an un-flagged dose of sarcasm.

Can anyone really say F-105 was a dud? ..

I won't make that call, but during early stages of F-111 development, USAF brought an F-105 into Fort Worth. Many F-111 engineers were given an inspection tour of the airplane with all panels, doors, etc. open. Our instructions were to look at everything we could and then be sure the F-111 did not have anything like that.

...Except the ‘go like hell down low’ thing.

Reading into what Dr. Roper is saying, I think the allusion to the century series is more about spiral development, programs building off each other rather than starting from a blank page, and pushing forward advances that are at a low TRL.

The century series built off of spiral developments in propulsion: Pratt’s J57 on the F-100, F-102, F-101 evolved into J75 on the F-105 and F-106. The GE line led to the J79 on the F-104, F-4.

Several shared developments built of the Hughes series of fire control systems each building off the previous, mostly air force century series, the others, like the F-4’s AN/APQ-75 from the Westinghouse lineage going all the way back to the Skyray’s radar.
In regards to using a similar development program going forward:
They’ve already split the ATEP program for sizing to a possible F135 replacement and a future engine for whatever comes out of NGAD. Also, while CPU and LRU have to be updated regularly, all the software coding could be reused and refined from different projects.
Considering the time and complexity involved in programming files and developing algorithms, I’d say that’s why he specifically mentioned this.

Our instructions were to look at everything we could and then be sure the F-111 did not have anything like that.

Like the stop drilled hair-line cracks in the wing skin.

Actually JW, our AFRES MX guys didn't fully appreciate the relative ease of working on the F-105.....until we got the F-4, 'scuse me, F-110.

From a pilot POV, the F-105 handled like a big T-38, reasonably docile.....once you used enough runway to finally get the thing airborne.

It would be great to hear comments from Gums here. He has a lot of first hand knowledge.

Rapid development vs traditional has always been a hot topic. I personally think that it's somewhat like air combat -- the better pilot often wins there and the better development team can often make the difference.

As for the century series, I just checked to see what it includes - these remarks are from an amateur
F-100 - early problems -- not sure that it was well regarded, but I don't know. It had a fairly brief role in Vietnam if I have my facts straight.
F-101 -- a fairly brief career
F-102/106 -- intereceptors that I don't know much about.
F-104 -- seem to be some great differences of opinion
F-105 -- probably not the right aircraft for Vietnam , but it was what was available. Might have been good in its intended role.


I'm not sure that this constitutes great success. But, as I said, I'm no expert. Would really like to hear from others.

hj

Other then the F-104 they all had decent service for the USAF/ANG. I always wonder why people call the F-104 the flying coffin but not the F-105.

Years of service excluding any QF time.

F-100 25 years 1954-1979
F-101 25 years 1957-1982
F-102 23 years 1956-1979
F-104 17 years 1958-1975 46 year total service from USAF 1958 utill Italian retirement in 2004.
F-105 26 years 1958-1984
F-106 32 years 1956-1988

F-101 was evolved to F-110. And the F-110 was actually very successful. No doubt F-15 was a true evolution of it. And F-22A seemed to build upon the F-15 experience.

F-104 was pretty successful, too. F-16 seemed to evolve from the experience gained. And F-35 seems to be a well-suited F-16 replacement.

Can anyone really say F-105 was a dud? I saw them still flying out of Lincoln, Nebraska in the 80's! And F-111 was more or less a worthy replacement for Tacair. F-15E hasn't been a terrible replacement of F-111.

F-102 evolved to F-106, of which NORAD relied on for decades. Would have been nice to see it get modern, but gas was cheap and speed-endurance performance marginalized by leadership eventually killed it off. The airframe was no frills and rugged. Probably could have been modernized to live on like they did with the B-52s. Fly it for a century...

Me thinks someone has the GE F101 and its derivatives F110, J101 (F404) and F118 confused with the McDonnell Douglas F-101 and F-4D(F-110)...

I think the ‘Century Series’ is a potentially fatal misreading of history; a romantic but dangerous, revisionist reading of the times. Which design proved to be prescient relative to the eventual need? How much did it all cost and for what end(s)? Back in the day, the US was spending ~8% of GDP on defense; where are we today? Three (3)??

How does a comprehensive test program work for each type, including timelines for component qualification and structural durability? Who gets to sign off on the assumed risk to air worthiness inherent in abbreviated testing in an age where every pimple in the paint job gets reported as a fatal flaw? Is there some kind of hidden repository of leaders willing to sign up to this kind public scrutiny on behalf of the institution?

How do you keep a significant portion of your fighter force (that includes the maintainers not just pilots) in a near perpetual state of transition from one type to another, while meeting operational commitments?

Just for starters...

It would be great to hear comments from Gums here. He has a lot of first hand knowledge.

Rapid development vs traditional has always been a hot topic. I personally think that it's somewhat like air combat -- the better pilot often wins there and the better development team can often make the difference.

As for the century series, I just checked to see what it includes - these remarks are from an amateur
F-100 - early problems -- not sure that it was well regarded, but I don't know. It had a fairly brief role in Vietnam if I have my facts straight.
F-101 -- a fairly brief career
F-102/106 -- intereceptors that I don't know much about.
F-104 -- seem to be some great differences of opinion
F-105 -- probably not the right aircraft for Vietnam , but it was what was available. Might have been good in its intended role.


I'm not sure that this constitutes great success. But, as I said, I'm no expert. Would really like to hear from others.

hj

Other then the F-104 they all had decent service for the USAF/ANG. I always wonder why people call the F-104 the flying coffin but not the F-105.

Years of service excluding any QF time.

F-100 25 years 1954-1979
F-101 25 years 1957-1982
F-102 23 years 1956-1979
F-104 17 years 1958-1975 46 year total service from USAF 1958 utill Italian retirement in 2004.
F-105 26 years 1958-1984
F-106 32 years 1956-1988

The Germans used the F-104 as a fighter-bomber. They received 917 aircraft and lost 252 aircraft to various means.

Our instructions were to look at everything we could and then be sure the F-111 did not have anything like that.

Like the stop drilled hair-line cracks in the wing skin.

That's a common repair method. Certainly not F-105 specific.

I think the ‘Century Series’ is a potentially fatal misreading of history; a romantic but dangerous, revisionist reading of the times. Which design proved to be prescient relative to the eventual need? How much did it all cost and for what end(s)? Back in the day, the US was spending ~8% of GDP on defense; where are we today? Three (3)??

How does a comprehensive test program work for each type, including timelines for component qualification and structural durability? Who gets to sign off on the assumed risk to air worthiness inherent in abbreviated testing in an age where every pimple in the paint job gets reported as a fatal flaw? Is there some kind of hidden repository of leaders willing to sign up to this kind public scrutiny on behalf of the institution?

How do you keep a significant portion of your fighter force (that includes the maintainers not just pilots) in a near perpetual state of transition from one type to another, while meeting operational commitments?

Just for starters...

The 40s-50s would have probably scared the hell out of you by comparison. Roper's point is that it's almost to the point that by the time a thing is fielded it's obsolete. Even "back in the day" things were changing so fast that was a danger. Compare the F-100 to the YF-12A. 10 years apart. Less than the time it took to go from the X-35 to the F-35.

The F-104 was designed as a pure interceptor. Get there, shoot, and get home.

Looking at its long track record, and looking at what all customers did with that aircraft?
I can only admire it.

And then staying the prime aircraft for so many countries for so long? => WHAW !!

Just like the F-16 : From pure dogfighter to bomb truck?
They have had pretty similar lives.


Germany is/was/will always be a special F-104 case:
They came "from close to nothing" to the F-104 (designed as pure high level interceptor) but flown in a very high speed low level bomber role in a misty, cloudy, rainy Europe.

WHAW!

I think the ‘Century Series’ is a potentially fatal misreading of history; a romantic but dangerous, revisionist reading of the times. Which design proved to be prescient relative to the eventual need? How much did it all cost and for what end(s)? Back in the day, the US was spending ~8% of GDP on defense; where are we today? Three (3)??

How does a comprehensive test program work for each type, including timelines for component qualification and structural durability? Who gets to sign off on the assumed risk to air worthiness inherent in abbreviated testing in an age where every pimple in the paint job gets reported as a fatal flaw? Is there some kind of hidden repository of leaders willing to sign up to this kind public scrutiny on behalf of the institution?

How do you keep a significant portion of your fighter force (that includes the maintainers not just pilots) in a near perpetual state of transition from one type to another, while meeting operational commitments?

Just for starters...

The 40s-50s would have probably scared the hell out of you by comparison. Roper's point is that it's almost to the point that by the time a thing is fielded it's obsolete. Even "back in the day" things were changing so fast that was a danger. Compare the F-100 to the YF-12A. 10 years apart. Less than the time it took to go from the X-35 to the F-35.

I flew the AV-8A for several years. Few things scare me...

I get it. They wanna go faster and (for the sake of learning) profess a willingness to accept the risk that comes as a consequence. Engineers know how to do that; bureaucrats/politicians do not. When we start talking MDAPs (instead of what amounts to small science projects), there are some things that 'going faster' programmatically does not resolve -- like keeping the training systems aligned with the systems and capabilities in the aircraft, and shortening the timelines necessary to bring humans (whether they be pilots or maintainers) up to speed in those systems -- all in the context of fielding combat-ready, deployable units. There's no Cold War and there is no major air war going on the other side of the planet (yet). Thus, if there is any compelling need, it is certainly less evident to the average tax-paying/voting American.

Of course there are the two large elephants standing in the corner -- money and the ubiquity of public information sources about what's being built, why and at what expense. Together they drive limitations on the art of the possible wrt the pursuit of any 'shiney new thing' and the amount of risk acceptance that the government tacitly asks the public to accept. Much different than the 40s, 50s or 60s...

There's no Cold War and there is no major air war going on the other side of the planet (yet). Thus, if there is any compelling need, it is certainly less evident to the average tax-paying/voting American.

It's just getting started. Worse, there are TWO players on the other side.