Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: infrared and interceptors
Message-ID: <8529@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 Jul 89 05:13:59 GMT
References: <8347@cbnews.ATT.COM> <8413@cbnews.ATT.COM> <8479@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 38
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>>... the USAF hasn't
>>built an interceptor for 25 years, and has forgotten how.
>
>I thought that the ANG Phantoms were supposed to fill this role. Were else
>would the USAF need to deploy air-defence interceptors instead of sleek,
>sexy air-superiority machines? :-)

The ANG Phantoms are being retired in favor of sleek, sexy air-superiority
machines with big "interceptor" labels stuck on them for Congress's benefit.
In the same way that the USAF is trying to retire its close-air-support
fleet and replace them with s-s-a-s-m's and deep-strike interdictors
with easy-peel-off labels saying "close air support".

Most military services, and US military aviation in particular, have quite
specific ideas of what their "real" missions are.  This tends to shape both
hardware procurement and operational budgets.  Anything that doesn't fit
the "real" missions will be pushed off into a corner, or converted so that
it can also do something "real" when the big one starts, as much as possible.
Ignoring SAC, which is an air force within an air force, the USAF's "real"
missions are air superiority and long-range tactical nuclear strike.  At
that, air superiority is a recent addition, and it shows:  the F-16,
conceived as a pure and uncompromised air-superiority fighter, has been
converted into a nuclear-capable bomber to a considerable extent.  The
resulting changes have noticeably compromised it for air superiority.
The Phantom, a decent interceptor and conventional bomber, was rammed down
the USAF's throat by McNamara; the USAF wanted more F-105 nuclear-deep-strike
bombers instead.

(If you want to know how to tell the difference, one thing that historically
has been a bit of a giveaway is a *small* internal weapons bay, just large
enough to hold one or two tactical nuclear bombs but not big enough for a
useful conventional load.)

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu