Were any of the century series of fighters any good?

Yes.

>>32284621
Any in particular? Other than the F-117 and F-111 which don't really count and probably shouldn't be on that pic they generally get a bad rep.

>>32284563
Most of them were.
>F4 Phantom (F-110)
>FB-111
>F-117
>F-100
>F-105
All saw extensive combat use and performed admirably. Half of them are still in use in foreign militaries.

>>32284563
>one of those does not belong

Obviously the F100, F4, and F105 all tangled with MiGs and held their own. But many early 60's fighters were flawed, housing new temperamental engines, radar, and missiles, and being flown to a new and mostly illogical doctrine that hinged on said technology being perfect instead of what it was at the time, barely working

>>32284682
Why did the F-4 go from being called the F-110 to being called the F-4? Was it because it started off in Navy, instead of Air Force service, and they used different designation systems at that time?

>>32284711
I honestly don't know. I'm not super huge on planes and had to google it after going "F-110? Dafuq? That looks like a Phantom."

>>32284726
I'm guessing that's why. I know the Navy at that time used single digit designations like the F-8 Crusader.

Though why it never got a century designation when it went to AF service I have no idea. The Crusader got an AF A designation when the Air Force adopted it..

What is the Thunderwarrior and why didn't it enter service?

It's clearly the coolest plane ever.

>>32284681
I'd really disagree.

The F4 was one of the best planes of its era across any role and country.

The F105 proved to be an extremely good SEAD plane as well as a competent dogfighter despite some people grumbling about its handling characteristics. It was also fast as fuck, the fastest warplane made prior to the introduction of I believe the F14.

The F100 proved a competent dogfighter in the early days of supersonic craft, as well as being the first fighter capable of breaking the sound barrier in level flight.

And of course there's the Aardvark, which despite its fighter designation proved to be an amazingly good medium bomber and cruise missile platform. It wasn't until the Lancer came along that anything even remotely close to its capabilities existed, and you can clearly see the similarities in design between the two.

>>32284836
The F-4 doesn't count.

>>32284857
Why not? It's shot down more enemy planes than any other plane in the history of planes, is or was used by 40 countries, and is still in current operation as a combat aircraft.

>>32284857
Yo the f-4 still sim kills shit nigga, its like the muscle car of airplanes, its big and stupid and it makes no sense but it does work son.

>>32284878
>>32284880
Because it's not actually part of the century series. No one thinks of it when they think of the century series.

>>32284880
And like muscle cars, the F-4 didn't set the air speed record (it did hold the air speed record for a brief period) through fancy engineering or sleek design and shit, those engines are just fucking huge.

>>32284903
Will it still tickle your 'tisms if I call it the F110 instead?

Cuz it's the same fucking plane.

>>32284917
Still doesn't count and nothing will change that.

File: a7-f8.jpg (20KB, 700x146px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 700x146px

>>32284749
>The Crusader got an AF A designation when the Air Force adopted it..
That wasn't the Crusader. That was the A-7, which was similar but a smaller attack aircraft with a completely different role. The USN had A-7s as well. Pic related.

>>32284954
I take that as a yes.

In that case, opinion discarded.

>>32284992
Huh, I'll be damned. Learn something new everyday.

File: F-111BTouchdownCoralSea Cleaned web.jpg (143KB, 1600x673px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1600x673px

>nobody will ever love the F-111B

>>32285034
Deservedly so. It has a stupid name and McNamara tried to force the meme too hard.

>>32284711
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system

Original Naval designation was F4H. And it was never considered part of the century series.

>>32285052
>>32285034

>we almost got these instead of the F-14

>>32285115
Perish the thought

>>32284711
Because the F-4 was developed right around the time when the designation system was restandardized. The prototype was flown for the Navy as the F4H and a tentative F-110 name was given for the USAF, but when McNamara reorganized designations, it became the F-4.

>>32284749
Same thing with the F-8 - it was the F8U before 1962.

File: xf103_cutaway.jpg (525KB, 2000x1166px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 2000x1166px

>>32284827
The XF-103 was an ambitious proposal from Republic for the 1954 Interceptor program. It ended up being way too ambitious for the time (Mach 3+ interceptor in the '50s), and was finally killed once its planned engine never panned out. In its place we got the F-102 and F-104, ultimately leading to the F-106.

The design was very advanced for the time, but don't let that make you think that it would have been a good idea. Propulsion issues nonwithstanding, the F-103 was heavily flawed due to things like a complete lack of area ruling and a hilariously short combat radius.