The real wonder is that MiG-17s managed to score kills against Mach 2 fighter-bombers escorted by fighters.

In training dogfights of USN and USAF crews against a “borrowed” MiG-17 from Egypt, basically all crews lost their first engagement. The F-105 may reach Mach 2, but below Mach 1 it does not have a decisive advantage before the Machmeter hits .9-ish. The 1g-SEP may be higher, while this is theoretical when it comes to turning. I guess 3g-SEP is worse for the F-105.

The only tactical options an F-105 had where a steep climb or a quick acceleration beyond Mach 1. When the MiG-17 had a height advantage, some of these manuevers might still give the MiGs enough time to score a kill.

The crews were advised to never go below 450 KIAS, use hit & run tactics and never get lured into a turning fight (which the Vietnamese actually didn’t really seek, either – sometimes they had to as the MiG-17 couldn’t disengage easily).

G-limits are often not set as the structural strength is limited, but because lifetime needs to be saved. Especially a swing-wing aircraft has severe life-time limitations due to its wing pivot.

I guess the F-15 can be pulled to 9g (inst) and more if needed. I would assume that a close combat would favor the F-15.

What did the F-4 have over the F-104 that made it a better ac. After all they both had the J-79 engine(s). One had a gun, stubby thin wings and a T tail, while the other had no gun, bent wings and a tail that looked like it was falling off. Other than the second seat and maybe some updated electronics, why was one a much better plane then the other.

dave

The F-104G was the better “nuclear” fighter bomber.
As fighter the F-104A probably was a comparable day fighter if the pilot was well skilled. The F-4B/C ruled through avionics and twin seat cockpit, but lost due to its size.

A fictional “F-104E” with latest J79 engines and not optimized for air2ground could have been a strong contender for any F-4 version.

Germany thought about it. But Lockheed made the better proposal: a cheaper aircraft with basically the same capabilities when it came to nuking. The F-104G was the better aircraft for the job.

IAs for departures and spins, some fighters (the F-4, for example) had a problem with adverse yaw when making aileron inputs at high angle of attack (AOA). In this situation, the aileron on the wing going up produced enough drag to pull that wing “back” as the jet rolled…the result was a tendency to roll in one direction while yawing in the opposite direction. If this condition was aggrevated enough, the outcome was a ‘departure’ (uncontrolled pitching, yawing, and rolling) that could end up in a spin if not corrected.

You sure that this is really correct? I think the problem is rather due to insufficient yaw authority. Have to look it up, but the “drag” of the aileron (it is more the entire wing) shouldn’t be the big issue when vertical stabilizer is in the loop.

From a test report for the R33 in current fitment Mikoyan likes to advertise the accomplishment of demonstrated destruction of surface skimming supersonic cruise missile in a tail chase by a MiG-31 flying at 8000 metres from more than 13km horizontal range iirc.
They infer that in a tail chase a small target exceeding 2.5 Mach at 100ft is a guaranteed kill by a high flying MiG-31 from better than 15km using Zaslon/R33. How far exactly for maximum, 25km?

Which cruise missile flies M2.5?

I think the R33 can be compared with the AIM54, as design and weight appear to be similar. The AIM54 proved 160km range under following circumstances:
> head-on shot
> supersonic, high altitude launch platform
> supersonic or transonic high altitude target
> distance at impact about 60km

Doing some sketchy calculations, assuming the target at M.9 and the launch platform at M1.8, and the missile’s average speed at M3.5 (to allow for acceleration and non-straight flight trajectory).
Then we arrive at 100 to 120km of “clear air distance”.
The range will be shorter if the launch platform flies lower and slower.

Why 60000?
Take 10000 or less.
Like the Dieppe-Raid.
Which was a disaster though.

All of which ignores any employment by the Home Fleet of capital ships. With the country fighting for its life you can guarantee that the three battleships, two battlecruisers and eleven cruisers would be pulled into the fight in the Channel. Their actual effect on the supply lines might actually be no greater than the impact of the destroyers, but they would make a very tempting target for the divebombers. Easier to hit being larger and slower, as well as offering more kudos.

While destroyers are tricky targets, capital ships are fairly simple. They would be attacked first, also for the Propaganda value. If a few more soldiers die due to lack or aerial support, the German leadership didn’t exactly care for minimum losses.

So think. We are not talking a drawn out campaign here like Crete or Dunkirk. Only the first three or four days would matter. The losses on that first awful night as the, ill-equipped for a sea crossing, invasion fleet is slashed to pieces by the destroyers operating under the cover of darkness, and then the three days whilst the remnants return to France still under attack to pick up the second wave AND all the essential supplies for the beachead and then attempt to return to the South Coast of England.

For German leadership it would be worth a few infantrymen if they could lure the RN into a battle within range of their limited air assets. Imagine the “epic night” over with a couple of infantrymen gone plus some shipping annihilated, but the RN suffering loss of several capital ships either at battle (unlikely) or bombed or torpedoed while trying to get to the landing beaches.