• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

NFS - Navy Fighter Study - 1968

The Navy Fighter Study (NFS) was prepared by the Navy Program Planning, Systems Analysis Division, to supplement the analysis of the F-111B Requirements Study and compared alternative aircraft in fulfilling two missions, Fleet Air Defense (FAD) and Other Fighter Roles (OFR).

The Navy concluded in its Navy Fighter Study (NFS) that the F-14 aircraft was cost effective for purposes of proceeding into Contract Definition. This study was prepared by the Navy Program Planning, Systems Analysis Division to supplement the analysis of the F-ll1B Requirements Study and compared alternative aircraft in fulfilling two missions, fleet air defense and other fighter roles.

The NFS group initially restricted their analysis to three aircraft capable of carrying the Phoenix missile: F-111B, F-14 and the A-6 MOD IIA. Subsequently, the F-4J alternative was also examined. The study group, however, did not consider other alternatives such as the VFAX with Sparrow missiles, the VFAX with Phoenix missiles, or the new improved F-4J (designated F-4 (FV)) which were included in the F-111B Requirements Study.

The VFAX aircraft was conceived as a small, highly maneuverable multi-mission fighter attack aircraft with all-weather air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, new avionics, an advance technology FX (F-15) / VFAX engine, and was to have the capability of carrying a variety of conventional and nuclear weapons. The VFAX with Sparrow was an alternative aircraft considered for use in FAD and OFR in the F-111B Requirements Study.

The F-4(FV) was to be a modified swing-wing version of the F-4J, and would carry Sparrow and Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. While the other alternatives were evaluated in the F-111B Requirements Study, they were not, except for the VFAX with Sparrow, mentioned in the NFS.

The Navy advised that the NFS was a refinement of the F-111B Requirements Study and as such only compared those type of aircraft found to be cost effective from the F-111B Requirements Study. The NFS indicated that the F-14 type aircraft was superior to the F-4J aircraft in escort and attack missions of OFR and required less deck space on the carrier.

The generally accepted definition of the term Other Fighter Roles (OFR), which evolved from the F-111B Requirements Study, was as follows: "... fighter missions in support of our attack aircraft whether they be actual escort of the attack aircraft; a barrier between the attack target and the threat; or a fighter sweep ahead of the attack aircraft. OFR is intended to include all such missions including attack, but excludes fleet air defense interception missions."

In its analysis of key performance factors the NFS stated that of the 12 performance indicators used in ranking the three aircraft, the F-14 ranked first in eight of the categories and the F-4J ranked first in four categories (F-14 and F-4J tied in one category). The table of the rankings shown in the NFS of candidate fighters in the escort and attack roles follows:

For its analysis of maneuverability in the close-in air-to-air engagement, the NFS used the VEDA Air Combat Simulator to perform a comparative evaluation of the F-14 and F-111B in OFR. The study found the F-14 to be superior to the F-111B in air-to-air combat. Four additional simulations were conducted which matched the F-14 against the Foxbat, MIG 21F and the F-4J, and the F-4J against the Foxbat (the Foxbat and MIG 21F are Soviet fighter aircraft). These four simulations had been run but the input assumptions used had generated extreme controversy.

The F-lll1B Requirements Study, prepared in January 1967, concluded that the F-111B aircraft with six Phoenix missiles was best for FAD and the VFAX aircraft was best for OFR missions. However, the F-111B aircraft production was subsequently canceled by the Congress. The NFS, prepared in March 1968, concluded that the F-14, with six Phoenix missiles was superior to the F-111B and could be used for both FAD and OFR missions, thus eliminating the need for two different aircraft.

In the opinion of GAO, this study was biased by the limited number of alternative aircraft considered. GAO did not believe the study conclusion that the F-14 was generally superior to the F-4J aircraft in other fighter roles was demonstrated conclusively. The updated effectiveness analysis should have been conducted for the Phoenix missile system development.