alfakiloSome “frog-eye view” aside, the topic is about the best naval fighter of the mid-1960….
…From 1964 till 1974 deployed near the coast of Vietnam the F-8 force could claim a 18/19-3 exchange ratio in air combat. The public hype about that is not justified to stay polite. 16 inferior MiG-17s and 3 MiG-21s is just a good ratio the quality of the related pilots ignored. Someone was intrested in good news for the home audiance at first and such exchange ratio did just give that. Nothing more and nothing less. Military are much less impressed by that raw number and did stick to the much more useful F-4B/J. Till the 70s the Phantom crews and the ones responsible for the related training had learned to get the most from that in all roles.
In the US fighter community, we have an expression “blowing smoke”…and that’s what you are doing here.
You are making claims that you cannot back up…such as your statement that the USN F-4 was a better “dogfighter” than the F-8. That’s an opinion…and you have yet to show anything that substantiates it.
Let me give you a hint. There are fighters…there are fighter-bombers…and then there are interceptors. You would benefit from learning the differences between them.
alfakiloWhen the F-15 first was in service they trained with USN F-4’s in DACT and got their heads handed to them. It took the USAF pilot training school to change a lot of their approach to air warfare – not just air superiority – to make the F-15 actually worthwhile. Superior machine in the hands of inferior pilots.
I flew some of the initial F-15 DACT when I was at Luke in the F-104.
Where did you get that info from?
alfakiloFalcons had the contact fuse and were an accurate missile, which made the available proximity fusing technology an extra complexity and unnecessary weight.
The Falcon was roundly disliked in the F-4 community of the 60s…there was a good reason why we referred to it as the “Hughes Arrow”…and that was that it had to hit something in order for the warhead to explode…no prox fuze.
We had a funny situation happen at Soesterberg when we were still carrying the AIM-4 on our alert birds. The two alert jets did a routine training scramble, and as we often did, set up for practice intercepts on each other. The flight lead acted as the target, and his wingman ran a stern conversion intercept on him. The wingman rolled out at the lead’s six to simulate a Fox 2 launch.
The only problem was that he had accidentally armed the Falcon, and so when he pushed the pickle button, off went the missile.
Before the wingman could get over his surprise, the Hughes Arrow homed in on the lead F-4 and went zooming right by, much to the consternation of the flight lead.
Since the wingman was doing a radar intercept, all of this was captured on the radar film…and what did that film show?
A perfect intercept. The firing indications looked like they had come right out of a Hughes manual. In the investigation, Hughes personnel were hard pressed to explain why this supposedly highly accurate missile could miss such a non-maneuvering target!!
Not long after, we converted to AIM-9s…funny how that happened!!
alfakiloNo, the time scale of the 60s in mind. I am aware that the USAF claimed 137 MiG-kills by F-4s till the end of the Vietnam War in the 70s.
Quit tap-dancing. Prior to the bombing halt in 1968, the number of USAF MiG kills stood at about 80 or more. Of those, about 25 belonged to F-105 pilots. Somehow, those numbers don’t add up to the F-105 being the “main MiG killer”.
Whatever former fellows may claim about their beloved F-8s, we have to stick to the known facts.
Good idea. So, why do you rely on personal opinion based on your total zero experience in the subject?
How many MiGs were claimed by F-8 pilots during the whole Vietnam War? How many missions were flown to achieve that?!
Are you trying to make a case for number of kills per sortie? Why don’t you provide the answer? And then say why that’s important.
For the other posters here, much of the jousting that went on in the military at that time about what was the “best” fighter was rooted in the friendly rivalry between single seat fighter pilots (F-104, F-105, F-8) and their two engine counterparts (F-4 pilots). Having flown both types, I can tell you that both sets of pilots were were pretty set in their ways and their attitudes had little to do with much besides boastfulness.
The F-105 drivers did run into MiGs more often in the 60s simply. Nothing more and nothing less.
That may or may not be true…and has zero to do with this discussion.
Are you ever going to say where you get your opinions from?
alfakiloThe F-105D was credited with 25 MiG kills.
And the F-4 was credited with far more. What’s your point? You made the statement that the F-105 was “the main MiG killer”. That statement is totally false.
In the hindsight it does not make much sense to repeat the questionable claims of the single-pilot gunfighter community against the crews of the missile only fighters.
When it comes to opinions, at least these pilots have actual experience in these aircraft.
You do not. So, for the second time, where does your opinion come from?
How many MiGs were downed by F-8s over Vietnam in how many missions?!
What’s your point? Are you comparing MiG kills to number of sorties? If so, what does that prove? For those of us who flew missions in that war that took place outside North Vietnam (and therefore in areas where there was no MiG activity)…and that was the majority of the missions…what are you trying to say?
alfakiloWrong. They were not the better “dogfighter”, they were just equipped with cannons too, which were more reliable at that time-scale.
Why is it then that the F-8 is credited with having the best kill ratio of any US fighter during that conflict?
If that doesn’t sway you, how did you arrive at this opinion…because I can tell you this…it sure isn’t the opinion of those of us who flew these aircraft.
The main MiG-killer were the F-105s, which could be claimed as versatile dogfighters hardly.
Since anyone can disprove that statement with a quick Google check of MiG kill numbers, what exactly did you mean by that?
alfakiloInterceptors were fitted with radar and fire control to attack from either the side or rear. With 104 rockets, the F-89D could cover the area of a football pitch – AFAIK they could do this purely by radar (all weather intercepts). Later systems could attack from any target aspect.
Interceptors such as the F-86D, F-89, and F-94 had early attack radar systems that could do blind attacks in all conditions…but the system was anything but a guaranteed kill.
Because of the similar speeds and defensive weapons on the bombers, tail chases were not the solution. Instead, these fighters were vectored by ground radar into a position that was ahead and to the side of the target. Once the interceptor acquired and locked on to the target, its radar system ran the intercept.
A typical attack method computed by the intercept radar was to fly a lead collision path that would bring the interceptor into rocket range with the interceptor aiming in front of the bomber. The pilot (or weapon system operator) had cues displayed on the interceptor radar scope that commanded changes in heading and pitch.
Once these cues were “centered up”, the pilot flew straight and waited for the fire signal. At that time, he would press and hold the weapon release button or trigger…the radar system then fired the rockets at the computed time.
As has already been said, this was at a relatively short range…1500 feet or so. The 2.75 rocket loses whatever accuracy it had to begin with at longer ranges. From the pilot’s point of view, this 1500 feet is essentially point blank range given the attack crossing angle…his flight path and that of the target are pretty close. Once the computer fired the rockets, the system displayed a “breakaway” cue on the scope to tell the pilot to aggressively maneuver away from the target’s flight path.
Since the 2.75 rocket is unguided, salvo firing them in this manner is much like shooting a shotgun at a clay pigeon. The idea was to fire a bunch of rockets in front of the target and hope that it and the rockets managed to come together.
The F-104 radar had a rocket intercept mode…I’ve flown it just for grins to see what it was like…usually using my wingman as a “target”. Let me tell you…that 1500′ is really, really close given our typical .9M speeds…that would have been sporty at night or in the weather.
alfakiloIt’s pre-1968 and the Mig-21 threat is alive and real. The F-4J hasn’t earned its combat wings in Vietnam yet. As Adm. David L. McDonald, Chief of Naval Operations, which naval fighter would you have liked to go into combat with?
Maybe it’s time to return to the original post and its original question.
The problem with this question is that it doesn’t say what the ground rules are. Were we supposed to frame our answers using the conditions over North Vietnam…or was this a general question?
Because those ground rules define the debate. Regardless of whether or not we are talking about the USN/USMC or the USAF, NV presented us with a combat arena that was a long way away, one where we had little support from GCI, and one where political considerations cut deeply into what we could and could not do.
If we take the question out of the Vietnam scenario, it becomes a whole different matter. Set the stage in a European environment (nuclear or conventional) and the limitations that we had to live with in NV pretty much go away. This means that what were seen as shortcomings of certain aircraft become less so. The dreaded MiG-21 becomes much less a formidable opponent when we don’t have one or more arms tied behind our backs.
alfakiloI don’t get why the F-104 keeps coming up, it was fast delivery truck, all be it very small, it was a useless straight fighter, and therefore out of the scope of this thread.
It keeps coming up so that folks who don’t know jack about the airplane can have a chance to display their ignorance.
alfakiloNote also that the F-15, designed for primarily Air-to-Air combat, and for dogfighting, preceded the F-16 into service.
The USAF Fighter Weapons School had a periodical called the Fighter Weapons Review that published articles and info relevant to fighter matters in the USAF and elsewhere. Back in the day before either the F-15 or F-16 became operational, I remember a cover for the FWR that was an illustration of what was seen at that time as the days to come…
…and it was a flight of F-15s loaded with “wall-to-wall” bombs being escorted by a flight of F-16s carrying nothing but AIM-9s. I’ve always got a laugh out of how that idea was 180 degrees off how things actually worked out.
alfakiloI disagree with the comment that America made brilliant fighters in the 1950s. The Sabre and Phantom were, but history tells us that the others were very fast, low-level nuke strike aircraft rather than good fighters. Combat manouverability and handling at altitude of most was traded for out and out speed, Don’t get me wrong I love the century series aircraft, but they were overweight hotrods on tiny wings, something that makes the Thunderchiefs pilots results in air to air combat in Vietman even more impressive..
The US builds fighters for power projection where range and payload are the more important desired characteristics. Unlike its European allies, had the US felt the need for a point defense interceptor, it would have kept the F-104A…but it didn’t. What it did need in the interception role was what it designed and employed…long range, all weather radar equipped interceptors. Similarly, when it came to conventional and nuclear weapon delivery, it built fighter-bombers (F-105, F-111 and A-7) or modified A2A designs to fit the fighter bomber role (F-84, F-100 and F-16).
alfakiloAnd your point is? Sorry, but each of your comments on this thread only serves to further highlight your lack of understanding of how fighters operate.
In reading your comments about the F-104, may I ask what is the basis for your understanding of how fighters operate…and in particular, how the F-104 operated?
alfakiloAlfakilo, a plane with lower CV can pull more g at the same speed than a plane with higher CV, unless they’re both above higher plane’s CV.
You’re permanently pulling things out of context, here. Why?Sure, the plane pulling less g can match higher g plane’s turn, but must fly at different speed and we’re talking about co-speeding planes here, one trying to take a tracking shot at the other.
If this is the point you’re trying to make ok, but that was neither the object of this discussion, nor I ever contested that in the first place, so what’s your point, apart from stating obvious?
My point, as you have put it, is to lend my expertise when needed to clarify or expand upon matters involving air combat. Sometimes the differences in languages makes this more difficult than it should be.
In a topic where some are looking for a difference between maneuverability and agility, I’ve said that I don’t think whatever difference may exist to be worth debating. Like the concept of corner velocity, any such difference is purely academic in my opinion.
alfakiloWell, if you’re on or your CV, then your placard (I assume this means manual load rating) and max g are the same.
The term “placard g” refers to aircraft limitations and restrictions which are often placed in cockpits on “placards” (something like a small note card). This placard g is the aircraft manufacturer’s limitation on g loading for a given configuration (commonly clean, so the value is the maximum for the aircraft). This g value is not the aerodynamic max that the aircraft can reach…it is only the max that the manufacturer allows.
Corner velocity is based on placard g, not max g.
If you have lower CV then your opponent you’ll be able to pull more g than him all the way up until his CV (for equally g rated planes), so if you’re above your CV and he’s below his like in the Spitfire vs. Fw190 example, that situation can hardly be called academic.
For whatever reason, you just aren’t getting this concept of CV. If the two aircraft are “equally g rated”, then their CVs are based on that same g loading. The pilot who is “above his CV” will be able to pull placard g but at a greater turn radius and lower turn rate…the pilot who is at a speed below his CV will have less g available but may well have better turn radius and rate numbers…it all depends on what speed he is at. CV is a math concept, not a tactical one…and doesn’t lend itself to simplistic generalizations.
Especially because it’s way easier to score a gun kill against slow/low maneuvering target than fast one and many gun combats ended in that particular speed region, around or below CVs.
I’m not sure what relevance that statement has with respect to this discussion. Some gun engagements happened at high speeds, some did not. Those that took place in extended maneuvering often ended up at slower speeds simply because of the energy loss that happened while turning hard.
Perhaps, you may call CV academic when both planes are above their CVs and co-speeding, since in that case their maximal turns are equal, but that’s another story and is irrelevant for my original example.
I’ve enjoyed this discussion, but I think I’ve exhausted my ability to explain the subject to you. Let’s just put it this way…for equal placard g limits, the aircraft that can reach that g at the lowest speed will in general terms be thought of as the better turning aircraft. If that means more maneuverable or more agile to some, then I don’t have a problem with that.
alfakilo😮
AlfaKilo if i’m not wrong you’ve been a former Starfighter and Phantom pilot and also a test pilot in the Red lag program.
What are your thoughts on the T-50 prototype and the status of the F-35 in general?Just a general opinion if possible.thank you
F-4s, F-104s, and A-10s…and I’ve flown missions at Red Flag back in the mid-80s (but not as a ‘test pilot’).
From what I’ve seen, the T-50 prototype offers the potential to be a competitor to the F-22 and F-35. As for the F-35, it will be as good as the amount of money that the US is willing to fund it with. The technological base is there…the only uncertain element in the aircraft’s progression from now to the future is the will to spend the necessary funds to make it happen.
Sign In
