Doug brought up a great point in responding to an earlier post. How many times have we seen an Attack or Strike airplane turned into a fighter? His point and I agree, is that historically its never been successful. Lets take a walk back in time.
This was the first joint fighter project. No. Let me clarify. It was the first naval interceptor and planned air force fighter. The USN tested and rejected it out of hand despite the strong protests of a diabolical SECDEF. The USAF accepted it but it served as a light bomber (to use the old fashioned designation) rather than a fighter. In the role for which it was designed it was a failure.
Tornado ADV. Again what we have is a long range striker that was re-roled into an air defense variant. It was a missile truck and most people acknowledge that it would have been dog meat in aerial combat against a Flanker or Fulcrum. Meeting Bear Bombers at range? Aces. Meeting a force of Migs or Sukhois coming in to deliver pain? Not so good.
Some smart ass will want to include the Sea Harrier on this list but again I push back and say that it was more an interceptor than an air superiority fighter. It was designed for fleet defense...the kill the archer scenario. How do I explain the planes performance in the Falklands? Excellent pilots that were the equal of any on the planet, the Argentinians fighting at the very end of their planes range and poor leadership of Argentinian forces. By the numbers the UK should not have won that war. The Sea Harrier helped but it was the pilots and not the plane that won that war.
Honestly in the current era I can find no contemporary examples of a strike fighter being turned into an air superiority airplane. Even the F-16, F-15, F-14 and F-18 all started out as air superiority platforms and then had their mission sets expanded to ground attack...not the other way around.
When the F-35 fails, it will be because they tried to take a truck and make it a Ferrari. A truck is an awesome vehicle, but a race car it is not.
Neither is an attack/strike/deep interdiction airplane a fighter.
 |
| FB-111 |
This was the first joint fighter project. No. Let me clarify. It was the first naval interceptor and planned air force fighter. The USN tested and rejected it out of hand despite the strong protests of a diabolical SECDEF. The USAF accepted it but it served as a light bomber (to use the old fashioned designation) rather than a fighter. In the role for which it was designed it was a failure.
 |
| Tornado ADV |
Tornado ADV. Again what we have is a long range striker that was re-roled into an air defense variant. It was a missile truck and most people acknowledge that it would have been dog meat in aerial combat against a Flanker or Fulcrum. Meeting Bear Bombers at range? Aces. Meeting a force of Migs or Sukhois coming in to deliver pain? Not so good.
 |
| Sea Harrier |
Some smart ass will want to include the Sea Harrier on this list but again I push back and say that it was more an interceptor than an air superiority fighter. It was designed for fleet defense...the kill the archer scenario. How do I explain the planes performance in the Falklands? Excellent pilots that were the equal of any on the planet, the Argentinians fighting at the very end of their planes range and poor leadership of Argentinian forces. By the numbers the UK should not have won that war. The Sea Harrier helped but it was the pilots and not the plane that won that war.
Honestly in the current era I can find no contemporary examples of a strike fighter being turned into an air superiority airplane. Even the F-16, F-15, F-14 and F-18 all started out as air superiority platforms and then had their mission sets expanded to ground attack...not the other way around.
When the F-35 fails, it will be because they tried to take a truck and make it a Ferrari. A truck is an awesome vehicle, but a race car it is not.
Neither is an attack/strike/deep interdiction airplane a fighter.
