User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 4:59:54 PM EDT
19 Kills in Combat, 17 with AIM-9 Sidewinders
4 x 20mm Guns that would malfunction under G load in a turn, almost useless unless at 1 G Tactics from its community were taken for the new Navy Fighter Weapons School after early losses in Vietnam with the F-4B. Radar was basically worthless other than for night/IFR formation flying to locate the lead. Used early Semi Active Radar Homing AIM-9C Sidewinders for night and frontal aspect shots, but it rarely worked. Once they added more avionics with the J model, the front became so heavy, they would carry only 2 AIM-9 missiles to keep its center of lift balanced in warmer weather. With the additional ECM and other avionics, they cut the ammo count and made afterburner wave-offs the only recoverable wave-off for carrier landings. What aircraft are we talking about? The F-8 Crusader, "Last of the Gunfighters" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:02:48 PM EDT
[#1]
I remember a pilot mentioning that his guns jammed in a high G turn in a dogfight over Vietnam in a history channel documentary awhile ago.
He stayed in the fight, even though he was also out missiles. Crazy, but not... Unprecedented behavior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:04:50 PM EDT
[#2]
An Examination of the F-8 Crusader through archival sources 2018
"This article uses recently released U.S. Navy documents and also correspondence with pilots and maintainers to add to existing biographies of the Vought F-8 Crusader in service with the U.S. Navy in Vietnam. It examines the common claim that the F-8 was ‘the last of the gunfighters’ and shows that as per Navy tactical doctrine its pilots actually used AIM-9 Sidewinders as their primary weapon. The capability of the F-8’s avionic equipment is examined, and it is shown that the stresses of carrier operations degraded their reliability. The aircraft required ground control intercept support to achieve a kill. Information on effective tactics for interceptions is provided, showing the value of the ‘loose deuce’ pair of aircraft operating together. Finally, a comparison is made between the F-8 and the F-4 which replaced the F-8 in U.S. Navy service progressively up to 1976." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:08:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Good stuff thank you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:12:00 PM EDT
[#4]
OST!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:12:56 PM EDT
[#5]
 Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:17:14 PM EDT
[#6]
The Mk 12 cannon was inferior to the M39. Both were completely superseded by the M-61.
The F-8 was an early 50's design that was rapidly left behind. It lasted longer than it should have because it was able to be launched off of the smaller Essex carriers. It was successful in killing off/replacing the dogs that were the majority of Naval Jets of its era (Skyray, Tiger, Cutlass, Demon). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:34:13 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:35:14 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An Examination of the F-8 Crusader through archival sources 2018 "Finally, a comparison is made between the F-8 and the F-4 which replaced the F-8 in U.S. Navy service progressively up to 1976." I also wonder what effect the ROE had on the Crusader kills. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:46:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
....and then they had to put a gun on the F-4. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
An Examination of the F-8 Crusader through archival sources 2018 "Finally, a comparison is made between the F-8 and the F-4 which replaced the F-8 in U.S. Navy service progressively up to 1976." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:49:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ....and then they had to put a gun on the F-4. I also wonder what effect the ROE in effect had on the Crusader kills. USAF Phantom pilots were severely handicapped not by the lack of a cannon as multiple History Channel shows state but by the pathetic AIM-4 Falcon missile. These performed so poorly that Robin Olds had his crew chiefs jury rig wiring so that Sidewinders could be used. Both the Navy and AF would have been better served by plastering the entirety of the North with AIR-2 rocket barrages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 5:54:28 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both the Navy and AF would have been better served by plastering the entirety of the North with AIR-2 rocket barrages. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 6:00:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ....and then they had to put a gun on the F-4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 6:17:12 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
....and then they had to put a gun on the F-4. I also wonder what effect the ROE in effect had on the Crusader kills. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
An Examination of the F-8 Crusader through archival sources 2018 "Finally, a comparison is made between the F-8 and the F-4 which replaced the F-8 in U.S. Navy service progressively up to 1976." I also wonder what effect the ROE in effect had on the Crusader kills. They used the Crusader fighter weapons training syllabus as a template for the new Fighter Weapons School as well: The Navy committed an ongoing effort to advanced training after the end of Rolling Thunder. Seventh Fleet, for example, emphasized firing missiles at maneuvering target drones in pursuit of maintaining a general readiness; the Pueblo Crisis encouraged that agenda apart from the possibility of a renewed air war against North Vietnam.108 Stateside, the Navy established the Navy Fighter Weapons School - Top Gun - and the F-8 Crusader community figured prominently in its formation. It began as an outgrowth of VF-124’s “Crusader College” on December 2, 1968. This initial advanced course for the F-8 Crusader community was four-week course comprised of 75 classroom and 25 flying hours centered around the study of “air combat maneuvering, radar, air-to-air gunnery, sidewinder tactics, air-to-ground delivery and electronic countermeasures.” Flight instruction included sorties against aircraft besides F-8s, among other things. Graduates would function as their squadron’s “Weapons Training Officer.” It came about at the behest of the Chief of Naval Operations. VF-124’s new Top Gun program produced results immediately. One veteran praised their ability to debrief Top Gun training missions as “outstanding,”109 and another wrote that VF-194’s Top Gun graduate “was a great instructor.”110 A few F-8 squadrons would enter a combat zone one last time a couple of years hence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 6:31:47 PM EDT
[#14]
For some reason, I've always Loved the F8
Tillman's book is worth a read. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 6:43:49 PM EDT
[#15]
Saw that article a week or so ago and thought about posting it here. One of the more interesting points is that, in head to head tests, the F-4B had the upper hand against the F-8 in a dog fight. The Crusader pilots would win the first few fights while the Phantom crews absorbed the lessons not taught in their community. Once the Phantom drivers learned how the game was played, the extra power in the Phantom meant they could play it better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 6:50:37 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Navy NEVER put an effective cannon on their F-4's and they didn't field any models with internal cannon. The SUU 20mm gun pods were mounted to USAF gunless F-4C and F-4D's. The F-4E, the most produced F-4 variant, had the M-61 in the nose and was first flown in 1965. USAF Phantom pilots were severely handicapped not by the lack of a cannon as multiple History Channel shows state but by the pathetic AIM-4 Falcon missile. These performed so poorly that Robin Olds had his crew chiefs jury rig wiring so that Sidewinders could be used. Both the Navy and AF would have been better served by plastering the entirety of the North with AIR-2 rocket barrages. The biggest problem in the war against the MiGs was the ban on attacking VPAF airfields. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 7:04:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It had the highest kill ratio of fighters in Vietnam, 18:3, and since it encountered its chances to kill MiGs while escorting A-4s and other strike packages, ROE wasn't a consideration anymore when you had MiGs trying to kill the aircraft they were tasked to protect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
An Examination of the F-8 Crusader through archival sources 2018 "Finally, a comparison is made between the F-8 and the F-4 which replaced the F-8 in U.S. Navy service progressively up to 1976." I also wonder what effect the ROE in effect had on the Crusader kills. Regarding the kill/loss ratios, I'd like to know what the ratio for the F-4 in Vietnam is if you exclude aircraft shot down while loaded with bombs. I don't think the Crusader was used as extensively as the Phantom for bombing in the North, and the MiGs flew almost exclusively as interceptors while selectively targeting strike aircraft and avoiding the MiGCAP fighters as much as possible. Including bomb-laden Phantoms in the loss column misrepresents it's true performance in the air-to-air role IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 7:23:04 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Saw that article a week or so ago and thought about posting it here. One of the more interesting points is that, in head to head tests, the F-4B had the upper hand against the F-8 in a dog fight. The Crusader pilots would win the first few fights while the Phantom crews absorbed the lessons not taught in their community. Once the Phantom drivers learned how the game was played, the extra power in the Phantom meant they could play it better. F-4J: 41,250 ft/min F-8E: 19,000 ft/min Climb rate was the F-8's strength....against other 1950s tube and wing designs. Up against a Phantom in the vertical? Game over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 7:39:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Without an effective radar and BVR missile the F-8 wouldn't have been hampered as much as the F-4 by the ROE that required visual identification. Regarding the kill/loss ratios, I'd like to know what the ratio for the F-4 in Vietnam is if you exclude aircraft shot down while loaded with bombs. I don't think the Crusader was used as extensively as the Phantom for bombing in the North, and the MiGs flew almost exclusively as interceptors while selectively targeting strike aircraft and avoiding the MiGCAP fighters as much as possible. Including bomb-laden Phantoms in the loss column misrepresents it's true performance in the air-to-air role IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
An Examination of the F-8 Crusader through archival sources 2018 "Finally, a comparison is made between the F-8 and the F-4 which replaced the F-8 in U.S. Navy service progressively up to 1976." I also wonder what effect the ROE in effect had on the Crusader kills. Regarding the kill/loss ratios, I'd like to know what the ratio for the F-4 in Vietnam is if you exclude aircraft shot down while loaded with bombs. I don't think the Crusader was used as extensively as the Phantom for bombing in the North, and the MiGs flew almost exclusively as interceptors while selectively targeting strike aircraft and avoiding the MiGCAP fighters as much as possible. Including bomb-laden Phantoms in the loss column misrepresents it's true performance in the air-to-air role IMO. Sample sizes are really small compared to USAF Phantom A2A engagements, then Navy F-4s. USAF F-4s had 108:33 overall, but had a higher 15:1 kill ratio after late 1972 according to this source: Vietnam Air War's Kill Ratio Debate The author also reports the US Navy went from 6.4:1 to 8.7:1 after instituting TOPGUN, but he makes a very compelling case for the role of early warning systems being a larger factor in success against incoming threat air. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 7:49:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Its brother from another mother the A7 had a big ole honking M61 in it and the ammo drum was MASSIVE. I guess the F8 didn't have room for it because of the tilting wing box system it used for carrier ops.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 8:08:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its brother from another mother the A7 had a big ole honking M61 in it and the ammo drum was MASSIVE. I guess the F8 didn't have room for it because of the tilting wing box system it used for carrier ops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its brother from another mother the A7 had a big ole honking M61 in it and the ammo drum was MASSIVE. I guess the F8 didn't have room for it because of the tilting wing box system it used for carrier ops. Its 20mm Colt cannons were almost useless though in air combat. I can only imagine the headlines today.... The list of major problems with the various F-8 production models would make for some major click-bait articles in today's world: Navy pilots complain of new fighter's radar, "complete garbage" one Naval aviator said. New fighter's guns prove to be useless in combat - US Navy pilot with recent Vietnam experience. Up to December 1966, they either jammed or failed to fire completely “during three of the eight” times they were used against MiGs. Sustained gun firing was normally possible only by not exceeding one G. One combat squadron, VF-24, concluded that the problems with the F-8’s Mark 12 cannon were serious. “The F-8C Crusader 20mm cannon weapon system proved unsatisfactory under prolonged combat conditions. Although one MiG-17 was downed by 20mm cannon fire, it was done at very close range without the aid of the lead computing gunsight, and under low ‘G’ flight conditions. Overall reliability of system was unsatisfactory for combat requirements.”11 The cannons jammed or did not fire at all “during 3 of 8 engagements involving 20mm firings” through 18 September 1966. Furthermore, during these early engagements, most pilots used their guns “from poor firing positions.” Only one of these gun firings scored hits on a MiG-17.12 VF-24 improved the guns’ reliability with “excellent preventive maintenance,” but contended that the cannon firing pattern was not tight enough. The F-8 was actually a missile-first fighter with guns. Its infrared-homing AIM-9D Sidewinders were more reliable than its 20mm cannon. Sidewinders performed pretty well when fired within their parameters; the six out of eleven fired through 1966 that missed did so because the pilot fired them before the aircraft was in a position from which the missile could track and guide on its target. Of the three missiles that tracked, one was fired too far behind the MiG, but the other two destroyed their targets.14 Although the AIM-9D was a good missile, its reliability deteriorated in service. Commander J.D. Ellison wrote that high- G flight, multiple arrested landings and catapult shots, and repeated flights over months, eroded the missile’s reliability.15 F-8 pilots achieved all but two of their 18 MiG kills with the AIM-9D. The F-8C’s AN/APS-67 could lock on to a target at 16 miles, but with “no angle tracking.” Al Lansdowne found the F-8D’s AN/APQ-83 to be an improvement,19 but Jim Alderink, one of the first Top Gun instructors, regarded that radar to be a piece of garbage, and it did not help that pilots did not get enough time to train in using the radar in flight. A veteran of the first squadron to take F-8Js to the Tonkin Gulf, John Braly of VF-162, had nothing good to say about this variant. According to Braly, “The project test pilot, LCDR Ken Billue, had recommended it was NOT ready for fleet use, too many problems.” Braly noted that this was second hand information. He added, “I think the feelings of most of us that had good F-8 experience was that they took a perfectly good plane, the F-8E, and really screwed it up with added weight, a heavy Magnavox pulse-doppler radar that never worked, the BLC [boundary layer control] which slowed it up, but required too much power to maintain the glide slope and left nothing but after-burner to wave-off if needed, and downsizing of our 20mm ammo cans to make room for worthless ECM gear.” On the one hand the F-8J had a boundary layer control wing which lowered the approach speed by 15-18 knots, a larger horizontal control surface, armor plating, the ALQ-100 and APR-30 for ECM, the new radar, and modifications to the airframe that extended its life to 4000 hours. On the other hand, this added 2,000 pounds to the aircraft’s weight, and the use of engine bleed air for the boundary layer control reduced thrust by 1,000 pounds. It was slightly less maneuverable in combat. The F-8J lacked enough engine power “for a carrier deck technique or bolter approach wave off” when carrying 2 AIM-9Ds and 200 rounds of 20mm ammunition if the air temperature was greater than 85 degrees. The temporary fix was to land with minimum fuel, and the permanent fix was the more powerful J57-P420 engine, which VF-53 got before the 1970 cruise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 8:49:16 PM EDT
[#22]
The F-105 actually had the most gun kills in SE Asia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 9:49:00 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 9:56:58 PM EDT
[#24]
The Marine Who Spent 40 Minutes Falling to Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rankin  William Rankin, The Man Who Rode The Thunder |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 10:09:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-8U Crusader was developed before the M61 Vulcan, so they would had to have re-designed the F-8 to carry it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Its brother from another mother the A7 had a big ole honking M61 in it and the ammo drum was MASSIVE. I guess the F8 didn't have room for it because of the tilting wing box system it used for carrier ops. ETA: Looks like an M61A1 at 248 lb weighs less than 4 Mk12 at 101 lb per gun. That doesn't include the feed system, which I suppose could weigh more for the Vulcan's linkless feed compared to the linked feed of the Mk12. This of course doesn't address space constraints. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2019 10:38:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crusader pilots admitted that their limited exposure was a factor in the F-8's kill ratio, as well as it being used for escort missions where ROE went out the window since MiGs had already attacked. Sample sizes are really small compared to USAF Phantom A2A engagements, then Navy F-4s. USAF F-4s had 108:33 overall, but had a higher 15:1 kill ratio after late 1972 according to this source: Vietnam Air War's Kill Ratio Debate The author also reports the US Navy went from 6.4:1 to 8.7:1 after instituting TOPGUN, but he makes a very compelling case for the role of early warning systems being a larger factor in success against incoming threat air. http://263i3m2dw9nnf6zqv39ktpr1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/MiGscorecard.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 1:57:57 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Marine Who Spent 40 Minutes Falling to Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rankin  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cqQzcChFG0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 6:40:02 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember a pilot mentioning that his guns jammed in a high G turn in a dogfight over Vietnam in a history channel documentary awhile ago. He stayed in the fight, even though he was also out missiles. Crazy, but not... Unprecedented behavior. the best way to leave a fight is to kill all the bad guys The dog fight is truly a fight to the death |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 6:51:46 AM EDT
[#29]
One of my favorite Falcon sim instructors was an F-8 driver. Lots of cool stories. Bailed out of two of them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 6:54:58 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember a pilot mentioning that his guns jammed in a high G turn in a dogfight over Vietnam in a history channel documentary awhile ago. He stayed in the fight, even though he was also out missiles. Crazy, but not... Unprecedented behavior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 6:56:14 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Holy crap Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Marine Who Spent 40 Minutes Falling to Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rankin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cqQzcChFG0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 7:00:17 AM EDT
[#32]
Oh, and regardless of their usage in air combat, guns are really good for strafing. Very hard to strafe without them. Pod mounted or internal, guns are a tool that war often makes a necessity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 7:25:38 AM EDT
[#33]
I knew some of the Raytheon missle engineering staff that were working on reliability issues with the AIM missle during the war.
Everyone I knew was a Navy war Vet working tirelessly to improve the product. Some slept at the shop, working 18 hour days , divorce, nervous break downs, tough to watch. They understood every missle failure was life and death for an Airman. At the time I didn't have the insight to even understand the issues they faced. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 7:33:38 AM EDT
[#34]
It falls under "lies,damn lies,and statistics" but the kill:loss ratio that so many bang on about needs addressed with a discussion rather than just looking at stats.
Most USAF planes shot down by MiGs were F-105s loaded down with bombs. Not only were they loaded down with bombs but due to the rules,they had to fly the same ingress and egress routes and the US could neither bomb the MiGs on the ground or go hunt for them in the same manner as fighter sweeps were conducted in Korea. The entire manner that war was fought was sheer lunacy. However,when they weren't loaded down the F-105 could easily outrun a 17 or 19 and as witnessed by the ~30 kills,weren't entirely helpless in a dogfight. When it comes to Navy aircraft and why their ratio was much worse,they had the same rules but were flying aircraft much more vulnerable. An A-1/4/6/7 loaded with bombs had a much lower chance of getting away from a MiG than an F-105 or F-4. Something that doesn't get discussed enough is that missiles were finally getting decent but in the last couple years of American involvement in the war there were few opportunities to use the most advanced Sidewinders. The G/H/J were much better missiles but there was very little chance to use them. Of course,if the USAF and USN were simply permitted to target the VPAF on the ground there wouldn't have been much of a story. There were only around 60 MiGs in service in 1966-1967,most could have been snuffed while sitting but nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 7:41:16 AM EDT
[#35]
France flew theirs until 2000.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 2:35:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It falls under "lies,damn lies,and statistics" but the kill:loss ratio that so many bang on about needs addressed with a discussion rather than just looking at stats. Most USAF planes shot down by MiGs were F-105s loaded down with bombs. Not only were they loaded down with bombs but due to the rules,they had to fly the same ingress and egress routes and the US could neither bomb the MiGs on the ground or go hunt for them in the same manner as fighter sweeps were conducted in Korea. The entire manner that war was fought was sheer lunacy. However,when they weren't loaded down the F-105 could easily outrun a 17 or 19 and as witnessed by the ~30 kills,weren't entirely helpless in a dogfight. When it comes to Navy aircraft and why their ratio was much worse,they had the same rules but were flying aircraft much more vulnerable. An A-1/4/6/7 loaded with bombs had a much lower chance of getting away from a MiG than an F-105 or F-4. Something that doesn't get discussed enough is that missiles were finally getting decent but in the last couple years of American involvement in the war there were few opportunities to use the most advanced Sidewinders. The G/H/J were much better missiles but there was very little chance to use them. Of course,if the USAF and USN were simply permitted to target the VPAF on the ground there wouldn't have been much of a story. There were only around 60 MiGs in service in 1966-1967,most could have been snuffed while sitting but nope. It's interesting to look at the fluctuations of kill ratios and adaptive tactics from both sides throughout the war, and how early warning was such a huge game-changer, and how surprise attacks from unobserved aspect were the primary method of intercept for MiG-19s and MiG-21s, especially in conjunction with MiG-17s acting as jumpers/diversions that could still kill you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 2:52:43 PM EDT
[#37]
And outside of war: F-8 Supercritical Wing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 3:12:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Sup?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 4:50:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Are the a7 and f8 cousins? Because I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 7:42:50 PM EDT
[#40]
Tagged for later
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 7:47:28 PM EDT
[#41]
My uncle flew F-8s with VMF (AW)-235 in nam 1965-66 iirr. Strictly ground attack never went north or did A-A.
Remember seeing RF's at Airshows before they retired and was lucky enough to see some French Navy F-8's at Ramstein AB before they retired them too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 8:57:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are the a7 and f8 cousins? Because I wouldn't be able to tell them apart. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 9:21:06 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are the a7 and f8 cousins? Because I wouldn't be able to tell them apart. The A7 is her pugdy dim witted sister 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 9:30:55 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are the a7 and f8 cousins? Because I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.  Unfortunately it was cancelled but the last A-7 developed looked like a round nose F-8 due to extending the fuselage and lengthening the tail 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 9:58:32 PM EDT
[#45]
A relative of mine was an F-8 pilot. Shot down a MiG-17 (AIM-9) with one too. He’s in this picture.
 Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 10:35:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Roger that. It's like Johnson and McNamara wanted the MiGs to get as many opportunities to intercept our fighters and bombers as possible. F-105s could have eliminated them from the get-go. Same for the SA-2 sites. Off limits in the Johnson years. It's interesting to look at the fluctuations of kill ratios and adaptive tactics from both sides throughout the war, and how early warning was such a huge game-changer, and how surprise attacks from unobserved aspect were the primary method of intercept for MiG-19s and MiG-21s, especially in conjunction with MiG-17s acting as jumpers/diversions that could still kill you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: It falls under "lies,damn lies,and statistics" but the kill:loss ratio that so many bang on about needs addressed with a discussion rather than just looking at stats. Most USAF planes shot down by MiGs were F-105s loaded down with bombs. Not only were they loaded down with bombs but due to the rules,they had to fly the same ingress and egress routes and the US could neither bomb the MiGs on the ground or go hunt for them in the same manner as fighter sweeps were conducted in Korea. The entire manner that war was fought was sheer lunacy. However,when they weren't loaded down the F-105 could easily outrun a 17 or 19 and as witnessed by the ~30 kills,weren't entirely helpless in a dogfight. When it comes to Navy aircraft and why their ratio was much worse,they had the same rules but were flying aircraft much more vulnerable. An A-1/4/6/7 loaded with bombs had a much lower chance of getting away from a MiG than an F-105 or F-4. Something that doesn't get discussed enough is that missiles were finally getting decent but in the last couple years of American involvement in the war there were few opportunities to use the most advanced Sidewinders. The G/H/J were much better missiles but there was very little chance to use them. Of course,if the USAF and USN were simply permitted to target the VPAF on the ground there wouldn't have been much of a story. There were only around 60 MiGs in service in 1966-1967,most could have been snuffed while sitting but nope. It's interesting to look at the fluctuations of kill ratios and adaptive tactics from both sides throughout the war, and how early warning was such a huge game-changer, and how surprise attacks from unobserved aspect were the primary method of intercept for MiG-19s and MiG-21s, especially in conjunction with MiG-17s acting as jumpers/diversions that could still kill you. And to keep this thread on topic: Bring Back the Phantoms!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2019 10:37:19 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The F8 is pure sexy hot looking chick The A7 is her pugdy dim witted sister https://designer.home.xs4all.nl/models/f8-crusader-72/a7-f8.jpg But A7 was better at its job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2019 7:23:15 AM EDT
[#48]
My cousin flew F-8s on two cruises including a Westpac/Yankee Station stint with VF-162 on the USS Shangri-La. After VF-162 decommissioned he went on to fly A-4 aggressors with VF-126. He liked the F-8 said it was a joy to fly. When I asked him about the F-4 vs the F-8 he said that the F-4 was the superior plane, and the reason for the high loss rate early on in the war was due to tactics. He said "Once we got enough former F-8 guys into the phantom community, they figured out how to fight the plane much more effectively, which was in the vertical. Phantoms could outclimb and outdive MiGs all day long."
FWIW: The F-8 has 2 more gun kills than Navy Phantoms got, coincidentally they are tied with A-1's in that regard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2019 7:57:24 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ....and then they had to put a gun on the F-4. I also wonder what effect the ROE had on the Crusader kills. Guns are a masturbatory joke so fighter pilots can justify stupidity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2019 8:11:04 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only because of the AIM-4 Falcon which was a piece of shit. Navy had the right heat seaker. yet another AF fuck up. Guns are a masturbatory joke so fighter pilots can justify stupidity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: ....and then they had to put a gun on the F-4. I also wonder what effect the ROE had on the Crusader kills. Guns are a masturbatory joke so fighter pilots can justify stupidity. 
 Going in for Guns - Dos Gringos |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
