Thanks for your interesting post.

… it was the AAA/SAM threat that made him lose sleep at night as the losses show that most of the Thuds lost in SEA were due to AAA/SAM. THUDS FOREVER!

By a wide margin: ~375 Thuds lost, of those only 23 to MiGs.

Although the MiG-25 can surely intercept an A-12, the chances are remote if circumstances are not optimal. So for this purpose the MiG-25 cannot be rated as a winning design. Actually any Phantom can catch an A-12, possible the missile needs more power. Considering the limited number of A-12s and the clear shift to ICBMs and SLBM in the 60s (both US and SU), the investment in an interceptor for a single purpose seems questionable (normally the Russians were rather rationale about where to spend money). Not to forget that MiG-25 was started in 1959, but did not produce any production model before 1965. And the Russians killed a lot of programs at that time, too (like the Americans).

I think the MiG-25 was build for several reasons:
– most Soviet interceptors of the late 50s were outclassed
– the B-58 was M2 and could outrun existing designs
– the threat of a M3-bomber was present, the technology available in US
– more range was needed
– prolonged times above M1 were very useful
– the unquestioned value of a M2.5+ tactical recoinnaissance aircraft
– have the fastest fighter in the homeland of the farmer and the worker

The history proved that the MiG-25 design was too challenging and it cost MiG lots of time and money (besides some test pilots) to make this aircraft operational.

And not to forget that in the early 60s the MiG-25 outclassed most Soviet interceptors by a wide margin. It could cruise supersonically for prolonged periods which was an advantage in fighting any bomber. Remember that a B-52 cruises at M0.9 and by that is had to catch for any fighter in the wide space of Russia. Accelerating to supersonic speeds was a more desperate option for short-rangers like the Su-9.

The MiG-25 was something like the high-end interceptor and the Su-15 the “low-end” solution. Later came more MiG-23P. The MiG-25 was really essential in the 1960s and the requirement for the high speed actually delayed the whole program by at least a few years. Operational interceptors have not been in place before the end of the 1960s, begin of 1970s. When the MiG-25P landed in Japan, it was in fact the first line interceptor of the Russian, although MiG-23 and Su-15 were already in service and MiG-29 and Su-27 were developing on the drawing board.

I believe the Vietnamese Air force may have shot down between 120 and 140 US aircraft in the Vietnam War, which averages out at about one aircraft every 3 or 4 weeks of the wars duration. I don’t remember the figures but I believe the US military lost a lot more aircraft in accidents in S.E. Asia in the same period. US pilots were probably more afraid of bad weather than they were of the North Vietnamese air force.

I’d say the biggest problem for American airpower wasn’t in reaching their targets but finding and identifying them.

Your view is guided by rational assessment, but I think that wasn’t the view of the crews and the commanding ranks at that time. Like Sens wrote, a determined attack by the North Vietnamese could make a bomb raid fruitless.

The Americans diverted considerable resources to cope with the air thread. And the attention still paid today to this engagements tells something of the opinion at that time. The most concerning experience of the Americans was probably that their much more sophisticated aircraft didn’t have an edge over the rather simple MiGs. The Americans were never able to gain a clear air superiority over North Vietnamese airspace, mostly due to strategy, but also due to the North Vietnamese tactics and aircraft.

The clashes over North Vietnam changed the requirements for new aircraft, in the USA (F-14 and F-15, slated F-4) and also in the Soviet Union (MiG-23M which was more suitable for close air combat than the early S-models, and finally the MiG-29).

Perhaps not to Fred Wiggins who was killed in that ONE F-102.

What was the point of that comment? I’m not saying his death (or any other U.S. servicemen in this case) was any less important. I’m saying that saying the F-102 was a bad fighter because of that one air-to-air loss is not necessarily true.

What is true is that the AIM-4 wasn’t suited for air-to-air combat, and this was largely due to the fact that it lacked a proximity fuse and its seeker coolant was only available for a limited time I believe (though I’m not sure if this only affected the F-4 as its Falcons were carried externally). If the AIM-4 had used a proximity fuse like the AIM-9 it probably would have been a bit more succcessful……..maybe not so much as the AIM-9, but more so than the 5 kills it was credited with (all from F-4D’s I believe).

Regarding the F-102, it was sent to SEA because it was by far and away able to respond in the quickest amount of time to any air threat from the North (namely the Il-28 Beagle jet bomber). The F-102 could be up and over the fence in less than 10 minutes I believe. Far faster than the F-4 or F-104.

Had the Falcon been a better dogfighting weapon, I think the Deuce would have had a fair amount of success against the VPAF……the MiG-17 it was clearly superior to and at least the equal of the MiG-19 (J-6). The MiG-21 would have been much more difficult to deal with, but then again the F-4 was there to handle that threat…..

The Il-28 of course would likely have been easy meat for the Dagger.

You underate the importance of tactics of the North Vietnamese, which at that time did never intent to meet the Americans on equal terms. The F-102 and other aircraft were meant for completely different kind of combat.

The North Vietnamese were not stupid, they knew very well that the Americans are superior by a magnitude in most arenas (incl. numerical strengh, supplies, aircrew training, intelligence, weapons, aircraft performance). So they focussed on ambushes and actually did something like a aerial guerrila-war. That was possible because the Americans did only hit few vital targets, so the North Vietnamese rarely need to defend by all costs. The mainstay of air defence of the North Vietnamese were always the AAA-batteries and to a smaller extent the SAMs. The fighters shot down something like 5% of the American planes and the ratio was always in favor of the Americans. For the North Vietnamese the air combat was a wasteful type of combat, but it was useful in order to divert ressources on the American side.

Against this type of enemy a fighter needs quick reaction, good performance during all operation phases. The F-102 surely was no good aircraft for that arena, nor was the F-106 suited for that.

Don’t forget to mention the other century series fighter which did actually play a massive role in the Vietnam air war – the F-105. The Thud’s alleged to have shot down around 27 aircraft in SE Asia – far more than it’s own losses in air to air, – which is pretty ironic really, considering that the F-105 was never designed primarily for the air to air role (it was originally designed for tactical nuclear strike) unlike the dedicated a2a century series you mentioned above. If only the F-102/F-104/F-106 had been used to the same extent as the F-105 they might have gained a much better better combat record.

The F-105 lost 23 in combat. That isn’t a great margin. However, considering the tactical situations the F-105 fought well. The Vietnamese normally were there in favorable positions.

Yeah, I’ve seen more than a few. Haven’t heard of any law of physics, aerodynamics, what have you that says you can’t reach Mach 2 dry regardless of how much power you might have though. Maybe you could take the time to explain that to me since I’m obviously just an uneducated wannabe?

Look yourself how much the thrust drops between 36kft and 50kft. This is for a modern low-bypass turbo-fan engine, and it is uninstalled, means that possible losses in inlet system are not included yet.

So no matter how much power you have dry thrust will get you to Mach 1.72 but not Mach 2 huh? Is that like the lightspeed barrier or something? :rolleyes:

((2.0 * 300m/s)² – (1.72 * 300m/s)² )/(1.72 * 300m/s)² * 100

= 35% more drag. That is something, ain’t it?

Don’t argue with the air density, with every feet you climb your losing power exactly as fast as you lose drag.