RockyHEHEHEHEHEH strongest defences in the world :rolleyes: heheheheheheheh come on
the strongest defences in the world in the 1960s were NORAD AND THE SOVIET UNION, or NATO or the WARSAW pact, but Vietnam never fielded so many fighters and SAMs as the Soviet Union or the US did.
There never was a concentration of air defenses in the US like there was over North Vietnam. I can’t speak to what was around Moscow, but the thousands of AAA sites in North Vietnam were denser than over the German Ruhr in WW II, plus there were huge numbers of SAM sites in addition to the fighter defences. Granted, the fighter defenses over central Europe were stronger on either side of the Iron Curtain, but the AAA defences in North Vietnam were immense.
The Soviet Tu-22M, Su-24 and MiG-23s in Afganistan had better combat record than the B-52, F-105 and F-4 in Vietnam.
:rolleyes: So tell us, how powerful was the Mujahideen Air Force? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: How many Patriot missile batteries did they have? AAA sites? :rolleyes:
Oh, actually there was a little air to air combat in that war. Two Pakistani F-16s shot down two MiG-23s.
RockyF-105s were beaten because it was an overall mediocre design…
from Aerospace Power Journal – Spring 1998
Did USAF Technology Fail in Vietnam?
bt Kenneth P. WerrellThe Republic F-105 Thunderchief in many ways symbolizes Air Force performance in Vietnam. It was an aircraft that looked good from any angle. It was fast and stable, a machine that pilots called “honest.” It could carry a heavy bomb load a long distance at a high speed. In short, it was a fine aircraft, a pilot’s plane, well designed for the single purpose of fighting a nuclear war…
an aircraft designed around a bomb bay that could accommodate a nuclear weapon and extensive avionics to lighten the workload of the pilot flying at high speed and at low altitudes. This would allow Tactical Air Command to participate in nuclear warfare, which was the primary emphasis of the American military during this period. The F-105… was the Air Force’s primary strike aircraft during the decade of the 1960s and what the Air Force had when the Vietnam War began. It flew three-quarters of the Air Force’s strike missions during Rolling Thunder, the American strategic bombing campaign against North Vietnam between 1965 and 1968.The F-105 did not fare well in combat… At low level it was the fastest aircraft of the war, but was at a disadvantage in air-to-air combat because of its lack of maneuverability. More than half (397) of the 753 F-105Ds and Fs built were lost in the war. Overall, the F-105 had the highest loss rate of any US aircraft operating in Southeast Asia and over North Vietnam.8 Why such heavy losses?
It is hard to put a positive spin on the F-105’s service in Vietnam… To cut to the heart of the issue, the F-105 could not overcome the limitations of its basic design, the peculiar conditions of the war, the role in which it found itself, or American tactics. At best, it proved to be a mediocre performer in difficult conditions.
Aside from its poor abilty to take battle damage, I disagree with this assesment of the F-105. It was a bomber, and it flew into the teeth of the strongest air defenses in the world. The vast majority were shot down by AAA, and any other aircraft would have been hit at least as often as the F-105, probably more often. The same goes for the F-4. Load up any aircraft of the period with bombs and it becomes a flying target until it drops its weapons on the enemy. After that, the F-105 was almost untouchable by other fighters. It was the F-22 of its time, cruising out of enemy airspace on the deck at such high speeds that nothing could catch it.
The F-105 was a strike aircraft, it was never intended to be fighter. Its not fair to compare it to dedicated air to air fighters of the time. As a strike aircraft, there was nothing better, except perhaps the later F-4. No tactical aircraft could carry such a large load to such distant targets at such a high speed.
Different F-105 wings used different tactics over North Vietnam. One wing flew large strike packages at medium altitudes with large numbers of support aircraft. They were plagued by AAA, SAMs and MiGs that had to be fended off by fighter escorts, chaff bombers, SAM suppression aircraft, and the like. The other wing used low level attacks without support aircraft, using the F-105 in the way it was designed to be used – high speed flight at low level, using terrain masking. The defenders had little warning of attack, and the F-105 was more successful using these tactics. Before you knock the F-105, name one aircraft that could have done the job better.
RockySOC, I cannot believe that, given the choice, you would rather have a brace of AIM-54´s under your wings than a brace of AIM-120.
Its not like they had to choose between the two. The F-14D/E could have had both. The F-14 could have had the first shot with the Phoenix, and then used AIM-120 as it closed with the enemy. Even if the Phoenix misses, the enemy is going to expend energy and position trying to evade the Phoenix. Then the F-14 will get the second shot with the AIM-120. When they close, the F-14 probably will have more energy. The poor SOB in the Flanker is going to get shot at three or four times before he gets his chance to shoot. 😎
For fleet defense the F-14 loiter longer, farther out, and intercept faster than the F-18E. The F-14 can carry a better rader. The Phoenix shoots farther and hits harder. Follow up can be done with AIM-120. The F-14 will bleed less energy in the first turn than a Hornet.
The F-14 has better range/payload than the F-18E.
I’m not sure where most of the maintenance work was on the Tomcat, but I think it was the avionics. That could change with upgrades.
The F-18E has its advantages, but its no replacement for the missions the F-14 was best at.
RockyTo add my Two penneth does anyone know how many phoenix’s were delivered to the iranians ?
284 Phoenix missiles were delivered to Iran.
World Airpower Journal, Volume 7 Autumn/Winter 1991, p. 73
RockyBritain didn’t have a supersonic fighter within thousands of miles of the Falklands during the war. Was this supposed to have happened after the war, perhaps?
RockyWow, this is worse than I expected. I know the data is out there, but I figured by now someone would have assembled it into a book or something. So many people consider it to be an interesting topic, such a book would be a hot item.
RockyThanks Paul!
RockyIt is often written that the MiG-25 Foxbat was built to counter the B-70 Valkyrie, and was put into production out of some kind of inertia after the bomber was cancelled. I think the continued existance of the RA-5C had a lot to do with it.
RockyI have several!
I was at an airshow at the Concord, New Hampshire airport in the late ’70s. There were a few scheduled flybys of milityary jets that were nice. A KC-135A and a formation of F-106s flew overhead at a moderate altitude and stately speed. Then I looked up and saw what I could barely make out as an A-4 Skyhawk at high altitude. The was no such aircraft on the schedule, and unlike the other flybys, there was no announcement or introduction at all. As I watched, this near speck rolled inverted and dove for the ground. It disappeared behind a line of trees in the distance. Within a minute this A-4 with the word “MARINES” emblazoned on the side came over the horizon at us and screamed down the length of the runway in a high speed pass on the deck that must have been close to the Mach. It was the fastest, lowest thing that I have ever seen, and a total surprise. He was gone in a flash. It compleately stole the show. There was no Marines airbase anywhere near there, and I have no idea what he was doing in the area.
A B-17 overflew a French and Indian War reenactment I was participating in at Ft. Frederick, Maryland in 1996. It was not an airshow, and not scheduled.
I was in my bedroom late one night about 1979. It was in New Hampshire, and the nearest military aircraft were FB-111As at Pease AFB, on the coast. Suddenly the house shook with a tremendus bang. The next day, other people I spoke to had heard it and one friend from another part of town said the springs in his window were still vibrating after the bang woke him up from his sleep. The next day the Concord newspaper reported that the bang had been heard over a large part of the state. The Air Force claimed that they had no aircraft in the area. The source of the shockwave was a mystery, but I still have my suspicians about those FB-111As.
RockyI built several Matchbox kits. They were the worst quality kits out there, but they made kits that no one else would.
RockyBoring
Its an oldie, but I have to say the Dassult Super Mystere. The F-16 is admittedly terribly common, and the thrill has worn off, but its still very pretty.
I’m starting a thread on a similar, but different line. What is the most generic looking jet fighter? Not necessarily dull, but just lacking in any unusual or interesting feature. No twin tails, canards, blended wing/body, or swing wings. Just a generic, plain old jet fighter. My vote is the Mirage F1. The F-100 is a contender.
RockyBest looking fighters
My list for the top 10 best looking fighters that went into production, excluding bombers or anything else, is:
1. Kfir C2
2. Gripen
3. F-16
4. MiG-25
5. F-22A
6. Rafale
7. F-5E
8. Su-27
9. M 2000
10. Ching-Kuo
The YF-12A and YF-23A would have ranked high on this list. If I could have included bombers, the B-1 and B-58A would also have ranked high.
RockyF-111
The F-111 was much better. It had vastly better avionics, and the swing wing was ideal for lifting a big load and then going fast. It gave a smoother ride for long flights on the deck, and terrific range with the wings extended. The TF-30 turbofan engins in the F-111 were much more fuel efficient than the J-79 turbojets in the A-5A. Nothing is faster on the deck than an F-111. The tunnel bomb bay on the A-5 never worked right, so bombs were carried on four pylons under the wings.
RockyF-4E
I would pick the F-4E for its speed, slats and internal gun. I do remember reading something to the effect that RAF F-4s were tasked to intercept low altitude targets over Germany. I suspect that the Spey turbofans had relatively better performance at low altitudes vs the J-79 turbojets in the F-4E.
RockyEven though I agree that he’s crazy I still think that Castro is a great leader, under his rule, the Cuban people have free education and health care, and the only thing hold this country back is the US sanction.
The only thing holding Cuba back is Castro. The communest system imposed by Castro has made his country an economic basket case. Castro is a tyrant who kills or imprisons dissidents, and he has impoverished his nation. There is a constant stream of Cubans who risk their lives trying to escape Cuba by sailing to Florida on anything that will float. Many die trying. His foreign policy is to spread communism around the world, and that has been a failure too. And there is no such thing as free education or health care. Just because you forcibly take the money to pay for it by taxation doesn’t make it free.
Sign In
