The MiG-23MLD was clearly better than the F-106 in the air superiority role. The MiG had better rates of acceleration, climb, and sustained turn rate. The MiG’s thrust to weight ratio was better. Most importantly, the MiG-23MLD is going to get the first shot in with a BVR R-23R. Closer in, either the R-60 or the R-3 is much better against fighter type targets than an AIM-4.
At very high altitudes, the big wing of the F-106 would give that fighter the advantage in a gun fight.
The F-106A would fair better against the early MiG-23MS. The radar in the F-106A was superior, and the F-106A could shoot the MiG-23MS in the face with an AIM-4F Falcon SARH missile, while the MiG-23MS had no radar homing missile capability. Manuverability of the MiG-23MS was very poor, and the structure was weak. It was restricted to 5g after a test plane disintegrated while in a 7.3g turn. Handling at high AoA has been described as “vicious”, and the MIG-23MS (or MiG-23M) was “prone to enter an unrecoverable flat spin in such condidtions.” In short, the MiG-23MS was awful, but again, the missiles in the F-106A were not suited to dogfights, so I think gun kills would have been more likely.

The last dedicated bomber intercepter built in the west was the F-106A. The MiG-25 was better, but it was a whole generation younger. Its real western equivalants were the F-108 Rapier, Avro Arrow, and the F-12, all of which were never built. I think they would have been overkill against a Tu-95 Bear, and they still couldn’t intercept an ICBM.

The B-1 sustainment is still screwed up. I would rather have 60-70 B-1s with new avionics/flight controls that had high mission up times combined with a real supply chain management system, instead of a lot more B-1s , where sustainment planning is done at the lowest common denominator and “pull it off the can bird” is the solution to a lot of maintenance problems. The firepower of a smaller number of properly maintained aircraft with high mission up times beats an underfunded effort with lower maintenance up times and a larger number of airframes and mouths to feed.

Yes, but we really should put the full force on line and properly fund it. The cost of putting a B-1B back to flying status is a lot less than building one from scratch, and the extra cost of new avioncs upgrades for a force that is x % larger is going to be less than x % more due to economies of scale. Each B-1 airframe is a precious asset that shouldn’t be sitting in the desert. The number of B-2s built is pathetic, and the B-52 is a huge, lumbering, geriatric bomb truck that is a giant radar target.

During the Vietnam War it was discovered that fast moving strike fighters had great difficulty locating CAS targets. Slow moving attack aircraft like the A-1 Skyraider and A-37 were found to be much better in the CAS role. Slow moving FAC aircraft like the O-2 and OV-10 Bronco were developed to spot targets for F-4 Phantoms. With the departure of the OV-10, A-10As have been converted to OA-10A FAC aircraft. I suppose that GFACs are now better able to provide precise coordinates for strike aircraft, but I don’t see an F-15E at 20,000ft being able to provide the same kind of support an A-10 can at 50 ft.

I think it could out turn a Tu-95 at low altitude…

I’m thinking of the following scenarios:
– the air campaign would have been able to severely disrupt the flow of supplies to the VC and NVA in the south (assumes the politicians would allow unrestricted targetting of military infrastructure in NV
– US air losses would be drastically lower
– the VC/NVA ability to wage war would be seriously curtailed. At worst, a stalemate and continuing guerilla war but no way they can takeover the south.

This is more of the same. Even with the much improved Linebacker type tactics and any technology you want to imagine, you can never win a defensive war against a determined enemy. If you are not willing to occupy Hanoi, the war just goes on forever until you tire of it. After the NVA army is defeated, only the Vietnamese themselves will ever be able to end an insurgency. A foriegn occupying army is just a recruiting tool for the enemy. We have to build up the Iraqi army an leave Iraq if we are to succeed there. It takes some time to do that, but the sooner the better.

Like the war in Iraq is over?

Nic

Yes, exactly the same. We rolled over Iraq and lost 187 dead. We have lost a lot more since then, but nothing like the 50,000 we lost in Vietnam fighting a defensive war. And yes, we are going to pull out of Iraq, but there will be an elected Iraqi government when we leave. I doubt the fighting will have stopped, but it will be fought amongst the Iraqis by then. The object was not to occupy either Vietnam or Iraq, it was to set up a democratic government in Iraq, or to defeat the communists in Vietnam. The insurgents in Iraq can’t occupy Bagdad with IEDs. Inflicting a trickle of casualties is not the same thing as having a viable army. The Iraqi people don’t like the insurgents.

If it were fought the same way as it was the first time, the result would have been the same. If the US had invaded North Vietnam in 1966, the war would have been over in months.