F-105 air superiority fighter variant.

[squid 21]

 

[Gr.Viper 131]

Would it be possible to pull MiG-19 trick on Thud i.e. make the body wider and fit another engine in?

Oh, wait. That's Tornado.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

The comparison was Operation Highspeed in 1961...

 

 

A comparative evaluation between the F4H-1 and the F-106A took place under the code name Operation Highspeed. The F4H-1 had better overall speed, altitude and range performance than the F-106A. In addition, it could carry heavier loads than the F-106A over longer distances and had a 25 percent greater radar range. Later, the Air Force also looked into the possibility of using the Phantom as a tactical fighter and as a tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The F4H-1 was much more versatile than the Air Force's F-105 Thunderchief, since it could not only carry similar external loads but was also potentially a much better air superiority fighter due to its more favorable wing and power loadings. In the reconnaissance role, the Phantom offered a much better performance than the RF-101A/C, and unlike the Voodoo, could be fitted for night photographic missions.

 

~ http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_7.html

I need to look more into that flyoff. Trust me when I poast that Phantom is *not* a fave of mine -- that would be F-106 lol (MiG-3 second fave) -- but it is what it is. I don't think NAVY intended F4H for "multi" but for fleet defence. It was the best option out there to conduct air-air warfare for both USAF and NAVY. Granted a 2 seat J79 Voodoo2 did not exist at the time, and if it had, and could accomodate Mach2 aerodynamically, it might be even better. And they have to cure that pitch up problem. If we can assume that, we can go for Voodoo2 as another campaign variable, a very spectacular one at that. I have considered J79 Voodoos in the past, but its more paper plane than F-105, so I just went with the later.

 

P-47 was multirole, and I learned at ubi.com that it won teh war. But I suspect multirole often happens without original design intent. Granted, you also need to have won some basic air superiority before you can dedicate fighters to ground attacks. I doubt people were thinking multirole Phantom in 1960. But there should be no surprise that multirole flows naturally from a fighter designed to carry carry 2 men, huge radar, and freaking 8 missiles along with big drop tanks at Mach 2**. No other plane of the day could match that, except a potential J79 Voodoo2. You are right to spot that.

 

** well not Mach 2 with all that stuff.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Lexx_Luthor

[UnknownPilot 33]

The pitch up "problem" really isn't (a problem). I'm not sure what the hang up there is.

 

F-4H is not a production combat version, and putting it against the 106A probably isn't the best fit, nor fairest test. Like I said, politics and a heavy thumb on the scale.

 

Let's start with the insane thrust per engine in the F-4. How many others in the USAF (or anywhere) had that? How hard would it be to pull an engine swap? Hot rodders do it all the time. Even dropping R-R Merlins in drag cars. lol Regardless, it's not a fair comparison, but is in keeping with a push from above as well as the USAF's penchant for throwing things away before they are ever actually developed.

 

They are already calling the Raptor an F/A. Multi-role is a serious desire for the services, and it's just lame. The hot-rodded Tomcat would have been cheaper and more effective than the Super Hornet. Also, how can one truly be as effective in a fast mover in an EW role as a sub-sonic jet? There's a REASON for the A-10's existance. I'm talking about different things and differnet tasks, but it's all about the same thing - loiter capability, both time on station and the ability to go slow and do it WELL. Whether CAS, Attack, or EW, a slow mover just makes more sense. And it's not going to be a very good fighter as a result.

 

Fast bombers aren't a bad thing, but the F-111 would be far better in that particular role than a Phantom ever could be. Specialization always means an ability (a possibility if all is done correctly) to excel in that area more than any jack of all trades could hope to.

 

 

On the deck the F-4 isn't much faster (if at all) than the Thud. The air is just too thick, especially when carrying all kinds of ordnance and tanks. And on the egress, with those SAMs it's almost better to stay on the deck.

 

Enh..... I LOVE the Phantom. And I acknowledge that the E is actually the superior version (handles better, packs the same BVR punch, plus has a gun(!)). It's just that it's a Navy plane, and it brought with it the total end of the Century Series and that whole style. What came after just smacks of Navy. The Eagle is just a revised Phantom afterall, and the Raptor is just a stealth-ized Eagle.

 

But that's all neither here or there.

 

If we are looking at the possibilities of making a fighter out of the Thud, it's a question of how could it be done, why would it be done, and how would things coalesce around it. And I think we really got that laid out pretty well now. :)

[Spinners 15,973]

I don't buy this 110 Spectre thing. Sure, someone else said there was a comparison and the Phantom was seen as better, but that smacks of severe politics and a heavy thumb on the scale.

 

The only thing pressing on the scale was the Phantom itself. Consider;

 

1. The quantum leap in performance it enjoyed over it's predecessors and contemporaries.

 

2. The amazing success of the design measured as an overall plus of 75% against 'standardised guarantees' (source: Modern Combat Aircraft No.1 - F-4 Phantom)

 

3. The relatively small amount of engineering changes made it a quick programme from first flight to service test status (and therefore viewed as successful).

 

4. It's amazingly smooth and successful service test phase and introduction into service.

 

5. All those dazzling world records!

 

The four-year difference between the first flight of the Voodoo and the Phantom just happened to be the most intense period of progress in aviation, things were moving at a galloping pace and there is no way that the Voodoo could compete no matter how much money you threw at it. Mr. Mac knew it and the world knew it. And that's why many nations (including my own) beat a path to his door.

[column5 62]

F-4H is not a production combat version, and putting it against the 106A probably isn't the best fit, nor fairest test. Like I said, politics and a heavy thumb on the scale.

 

There was a quasi-official evaluation of the F-4 against the F-106, in which the Dart faired poorly. The nature of the evaluation is controversial, though, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the F-106 could outperform the Phantom in some areas of A2A combat. The Dart's reliance on the AIM-4 throughout its career was an achilles heel.

 

Let's start with the insane thrust per engine in the F-4. How many others in the USAF (or anywhere) had that?

 

The dry-thrust to combat-weight ratio of the Phantom is not that much better than its contemporaries:

 

Phantom - 0.568

Thunderchief - 0.482

Delta Dart - 0.444

Starfighter - 0.484

 

The hot-rodded Tomcat would have been cheaper and more effective than the Super Hornet.

 

Undoubtedly more effective but probably not cheaper. The unit cost of the Tomcat was high and the maintenance costs were astronimcal compared to the Hornet. I'm a Tomcat fan but even I have to admit that cost was not one of its strengths. Still, as a taxpayer I would have preferred that the Navy got the better aircraft instead of the politically correct one.

 

Enh..... I LOVE the Phantom. And I acknowledge that the E is actually the superior version (handles better, packs the same BVR punch, plus has a gun(!)). It's just that it's a Navy plane, and it brought with it the total end of the Century Series and that whole style. What came after just smacks of Navy. The Eagle is just a revised Phantom afterall, and the Raptor is just a stealth-ized Eagle.

 

Uhm...the only similarity between the F-15 and the F-4 is that they have two engines. The F-15 is a pure USAF design incorporating all of the lessons that service learned during Vietnam. Also, the F-4 did not bring an end to the century series. The aircraft from the F-100 to the F-106 were the products of philosophy emphasizing speed, either for fast nuclear weapons delivery or fast intercept of manned bombers. As the manned bomber was superseded by the ICBM, the supersonic tactical aircraft became largely obsolete. If you want to blame the Navy for the death of the century series, blame Polaris.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Wow, I think that is a significantly better dry T/W. Thanks CV.

 

Phantom - 0.568

Thunderchief - 0.482

Delta Dart - 0.444

Starfighter - 0.484

 

 

Pilot thanks for allowing me to clarify my thinking. I'll consider lightening an F-105 fighter, or optimizing it for a version that eliminates bombing, or more powerful J75s. I don't know if Republic ever lightened anything in its history, or just added more power and fuel.

 

 

As for the F/A theme, I would not be inspired by reading the multi-role Republic P/A-47 won teh war.

 

 

Pilot::

Fast bombers aren't a bad thing, but the F-111 would be far better in that particular role than a Phantom ever could be.

F-111 is a next generation plane, and much larger than F-4, and might be like comparing P-47 to later Douglas A-26 Invader.

 

Now that we mentioned it, I've wondered about J75s for F-111 to get it into service early, for high altitude only, to replace F-4, and as a "cheaper" version of F-12 although sharing the same radar and weapons. Both can be used at the same time. When I read Lockheed proposed F-12 as "cheaper" stand in for F-108, well dam.

[Biggus 0]

The Dart's backseater was one of the most sophisticated GCI systems of the time. It was effectively the F-22 of it's generation. Don't know how many of you are members at the ACIG forum, but there's a great thread on the Six.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

May i suggest that everyone involved in this forum read "BOYD, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War" by Robert Coram.

 

I love the Thud, but all this talk about an air superiority version just isn't cutting it no matter how it's laid out. Neither is it working out for the 101.

 

"Air Superiority" as we envision it has a bit of a small problem. At some point, the wonder systems are not going to perform as advertised and a close up A2A encounter is going to happen. Despite the "Bigger Higher Faster" enchantments inherent to the Century Series, a number of them were seriously handicapped in a close in fight.

 

In these sims of ours, i absolutly dread the early years when unreliable missles neutralize the squadron and those MIGs (who sure as hell CAN go A2A quite adeptly).

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Cater, we are thinking something different. To start, go back to WW2 8th Air Force escort and RAF Bomber Command vs Luftwaffe night fighters, and review the last page or so here. I think F-4C would be better as long range heavy fighter, but not in 1961 because there was no F-4C. Assuming an F-105 production momentum gets going, F-4C might not be able to break it, at least not quickly, so that leaves us with doing the best we can with F-105.

 

As far as I know, when they were not surprised from behind, and given their non fighter role, Thud pilots in Vietnam did quite well against MiGs. After all, they flew Republics.

 

 

An interesting contrarian review of Boyd and Coram's book: Boydmania ~> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/fal04/mets.html

 

I like to think of Boydmania as the top of the Boyd Bubble; when Boyd fans say buy, sell.

 

 

 

Biggus, I've briefly seen debate over the effectiveness (or not) of SAGE. I'll see the acig thread. Thanks. I do know if you got into a tight daylight dogfight, those vacume tubes in the back seat won't help much.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Biggus, that looks like one GREAT thread there. When I get time I'll czech it out in Detail.

 

F-102 and F-106 interceptors ~> http://www.s188567700.online.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=803

 

 

Thanks man/manette!

[MigBuster 2,864]

 

 

An interesting contrarian review of Boyd and Coram's book: Boydmania ~> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/fal04/mets.html

 

 

Gawwd - interesting that it has more holes in its arguments than my fishing keepnet! Love this bloke trying to rub it in after missile tech actually got better from the mid nineties.

 

How did it come out? Did the great dogfighting ability of the agile F-15 and F-16 rescue us from doom? I doubt it. As of this writing, Air Force F-15s, the demons of the acolytes, had killed 39 targets—all of them with air-to-air missiles. Air Force F-16s have killed seven—none of them with the fine M-61 gun. In fact, the Viper has seen its effectiveness greatly enhanced by the addition of the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM), which gives most F-16s a beyond-visual-range (BVR) capability for the first time. The F-16 has used this missile for some of its kills—the rest have been with the updated Sidewinder, not nearly as dependent on the agility it used to require in Vietnam because it now has a near-all-aspect capability. So far, the Korea-style dogfight seems to have all but disappeared from the air-to-air battle. The agility of both aircraft remains highly useful in dodging surface-to-air missiles, but that is not what Boyd and the acolytes had in mind.

 

Notice no mention of IAF or PAF combat with F-16s! - If USAF F-16s had gone to war 1979 to 1988 against the USSR (the reason they were designed!) then the above would be a very different story yes.

Yet using AMRAAMs against an enemy of no equal - that makes your argument against creating agile fighters valid does it?

 

The F-111, another favorite whipping post for the acolytes, was the opposite of the lightweight fighter—much too complex and unreliable to maintain in high readiness.24 Who can argue with that? After all, one of the principles of war is simplicity. But none of the principles are sacrosanct, and one certainly can make a plan or a piece of equipment so simple that it will not do the job. The F-111 became one of McNamara’s projects to build commonality into service acquisition. For that reason, the airplane wound up with side-by-side seating instead of the Air Force’s preferred tandem seating. The latter would have made the bird too long to fit on an aircraft carrier’s elevator. But the Navy pulled out of the program in favor of the huge, swing-winged (like the F-111) F-14, saddling the Air Force with the restricted visibility of the seating arrangement for a couple of decades after-wards.

 

Thats right - the Navy pulled out of that thing that wasnt a fighter, and got a much better agile interceptor, with better visibility and could fire missiles too that was proven in combat with Iran and the US<shock> - Funny how the F-14 could fit on the elevator isnt it! - how did it manage that with tandem seating

 

However, for all its complexity and consequently low in-commission rate, the F-111 did fill an important role that the F-16 could not—long-range, low-level, all-weather attack with a fairly heavy payload. Indeed, when we could no longer patch the F-111, we had to redesign the F-15 into the E model with conformal tanks and new avionics to replace the 111 because its role remained necessary.

 

So the F-111 was a better long range bomber than the F-16 - **** really - because a tiny lightweight WVR fighter should be able to do everything! - why is he even comparing the two here!!

 

Yet the F-111s role still gets taken on by the F-15 - the other jet he's trying to slag off at the start of the article

 

Never read the Boyd book - and this Dr David R Mets might have a few points - but reading this anti Boyd/Coram paper - you would conclude that David R Mets is willing to put in as much mis information as he claims Coram has done so in the book!

Edited April 21, 2010 by MigBuster

[column5 62]

Gawwd - interesting that it has more holes in its arguments than my fishing keepnet! Love this bloke trying to rub it in after missile tech actually got better from the mid nineties.

 

I just clicked on the link and read a little of the article but the tone is so petulant that I gave up. Guy sounds like a douche.

[MigBuster 2,864]

I think F-4C would be better as long range heavy fighter, but not in 1961 because there was no F-4C. Assuming an F-105 production momentum gets going, F-4C might not be able to break it, at least not quickly, so that leaves us with doing the best we can with F-105.

 

As far as I know, when they were not surprised from behind, and given their non fighter role, Thud pilots in Vietnam did quite well against MiGs. After all, they flew Republics.

 

 

The F-105s did get about 27 kills against Mig-17s (pilots who probably also didnt see it coming) - that doesnt make it a fighter - against poorly trained pilots with questionable tactics who were slightly outnumbered in most cases.

 

Lets take a real fighter of that period - the Mirage 3 - faster and more agile than the F-105 - in combat took down over 200 MiGs - Yet when the IAF got a couple of MiG-17s and stuck some good pilots in them - they came to this conclusion (Osprey Mirage and Nesher Aces) - " A good MiG-17 pilot could tear a Shahak apart. I didnt realise how good this aircraft was, Henkin was incredible. He evaded me with ease, coming in right behind and closing the range with afterburner,to fight a MiG-17 at low altitude was very difficult"

 

 

In 1959 The MiG-21F came in which was as fast and more agile than the F-105 with a slower rate of fire but devastating 30mm cannon.

 

So by 1961 an F-105 without some major improvements in agility would probably be....well good luck against loads of Soviet pilots in 21s - you dont even have an energy advantage - so your only hope would be if they ignore you and go for the bombers.

 

Unlike the P-47 the F-105 would be faced with an enemy that can rip it apart, and also the F-105 achilles heal - that being its hydralic system - meaning even slight damage was enough to see it lose control once that was bled.

 

Of course you can rectify all these issues in the F-105X SuperThud.

Edited April 21, 2010 by MigBuster

[column5 62]

Of course you can rectify all these issues in the F-105X SuperThud.

 

Or just go for the F8U-3 instead.

[JediMaster 451]

F-107 FTW!

[Biggus 0]

Biggus, that looks like one GREAT thread there. When I get time I'll czech it out in Detail.

 

F-102 and F-106 interceptors ~> http://www.s188567700.online.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=803

 

 

Thanks man/manette!

 

 

Pleasure is all mine. I went from not really seeing the effectiveness of the bird to absolutely loving it and wishing it were updated.

 

And I'm a dude. My wife's name is Incontinentia. [/Life of Brian]

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

I'd like some RF-107s for recon, like the what, half dozen RF-100A's?

 

 

MigBuster::

The F-105s did get about 27 kills against Mig-17s (pilots who probably also didnt see it coming) - that doesnt make it a fighter - against poorly trained pilots with questionable tactics who were slightly outnumbered in most cases.

Right. They were not used as fighters. If they were, and if they were optimized for that role (subject of thread which should be fun), than they might have done better. As good as F-4C? Possibly not. I like the F-4 dry T/W ratios C5 poasted last page. I assume eventually a stretched 2 seat F-105 fighter as well which might further hurt its T/W.

 

We both know the MiG-21F was not as "fast" as F-105 at lower altitudes. I question the "fast" even at high altitudes as MiG-21 (and Mirage 3) pretty much ran out of fuel upon reaching Mach 2, and as noted in the quote below, no air refueling.

 

 

C5, yea that paper's tone is a huge turn off, but might be some good points. Most interesting to me (for now) is buried in a footnote that you missed by giving up. I don't know enough to agree or disagree with the strategic angle, but I figure at the time (Vietnam), you either had heavy long range aircraft (F-4/F-105), or short range mostly daylight dogfighters (MiG/Mirage). A larger winged F-104 (carrying more fuel), maybe F11F-1F Super Tiger, or high speed (pure missile armed) F8U-3 might have done better in tight Vietnam dogfights. Could they have used Combat Tree as well, overcome the bad communications situation as well, or avoid SAMs as well, with only one seat? I'm not so sure. Would they have as good a chance at getting back to a tanker? I don't know. The listed ranges on some of these single seaters are pretty good.

 

 

(14)....Too, if one had reequipped the entire US Navy and Air Force with MiG-21s, the picture would have become even more horrible because the MiG could not carry a bomb load; nor could it have flown from Korat to Hanoi, and it did not have the support of tankers. Had the flight taken place over Acapulco instead of Hanoi, it would have been no contest at all. In short, the acolytes are using a false analogy to compare the MiGs with the F-4s and F-105s—it is as clear a case of likening apples to oranges as one could desire. In any event, a big chunk of the air superiority enjoyed in Korea resulted from B-29s preventing the building of MiG airfields close to the battle. Furthermore, Joseph Stalin implemented a deliberate policy of avoiding a nuclear confrontation with the United States by strictly limiting his MiG units to the air defense of the Yalu River border and nothing more. Thus, even the B-50s and B-36s that LeMay would not deploy to Korea had a role in the maintenance of air superiority there. The point is that the entire model used by the reform movement to build its argument was bogus. In any event, the maintenance of a two-to-one kill ratio in Vietnam, in the enemy radar environment, far from one’s own bases is a testimonial to strength—not weakness.

 

~ http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/fal04/mets.html

 

[Lt. James Cater 62]

Cater, we are thinking something different. To start, go back to WW2 8th Air Force escort and RAF Bomber Command vs Luftwaffe night fighters, and review the last page or so here. I think F-4C would be better as long range heavy fighter, but not in 1961 because there was no F-4C. Assuming an F-105 production momentum gets going, F-4C might not be able to break it, at least not quickly, so that leaves us with doing the best we can with F-105.

 

As far as I know, when they were not surprised from behind, and given their non fighter role, Thud pilots in Vietnam did quite well against MiGs. After all, they flew Republics.

 

 

An interesting contrarian review of Boyd and Coram's book: Boydmania ~> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/fal04/mets.html

 

I like to think of Boydmania as the top of the Boyd Bubble; when Boyd fans say buy, sell.

 

 

 

Biggus, I've briefly seen debate over the effectiveness (or not) of SAGE. I'll see the acig thread. Thanks. I do know if you got into a tight daylight dogfight, those vacume tubes in the back seat won't help much.

 

I went back and re-read the whole thread. So we are taking about WW2 bomber/fighter action in the early/mid 60s. High level dogfighting with souped up Voodoos and Thuds VS MIGs/SUs.

 

I think that certain scenarios should have been suggested first before the techical discussion began. Like what Bombers are being used, what the targets are, how far into enemy airspace are they going, what altitude they are flying at, etc.

 

All in all, i think this would be great for MIG-21 pilots in particular.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

I can't MOD worth a damn but i can do a whole lot of research. If anyone would want to try experimenting with all this i would be happy to help out any way i can.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Biggus::

I went from not really seeing the effectiveness of the bird to absolutely loving it and wishing it were updated.

Its always been my #1 fave since I was a squish. Ever notice the vertical "tape" like instruments in the Colonial Vipers in 1970s Battlestar Galactica? Never really paying attention, I always figured they were popularizing the instruments from F-105/F-106.

 

But apparently they might have got that from the Space Shuttle panel. Scroll down the page below...

 

Joel's Battlestar Galactica TOS Page ~> http://www.joelowens.org/bsg/index.html

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Cater::

I think that certain scenarios should have been suggested first before the techical discussion began. Like what Bombers are being used, what the targets are, how far into enemy airspace are they going, what altitude they are flying at, etc.

 

All in all, i think this would be great for MIG-21 pilots in particular.

I think OP was relating to "real world" and generally for most of us that means Vietnam. So, if in a fictional "real world," the USAF never went with F-4, what would or could have been used later in Vietnam? That is quite the fiction, but not the extreme fantasy of a LeMay vs Savitsky simulation (SAC vs PVO).

 

In that bizarre fantasy, anywhere from 1947 to about 1971, I assume a need for air dominance, which means gain control of the high altitude day sky, like WW2 8th AAF, and the high altitude night sky, like RAF Bomber Command. That means 24hr ability to dominate the high altitude sky as was done for all major recent USAF operations (Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, Iraq, etc...). If needed, then go low altitude -- like P-47s and P-51s did in Germany after Luftwaffe was largely defeated at high altitude.

 

All the basic classical SAC planeset, and then some. Speeds? 1947 to 1971.

 

Tanker support is needed for deep penetrations into Soviet lands. A lot of tankers. A lot of local .gov support for air bases ringing the Soviet Union. A lot of expense.

 

Actually, can be great for Su-7 pilots. Unlike the -21, it was a dream to fly. Originally it was a fighter, somewhat heavy, and very powerful, so therefore short ranged like -21.

[MigBuster 2,864]

We both know the MiG-21F was not as "fast" as F-105 at lower altitudes. I question the "fast" even at high altitudes as MiG-21 (and Mirage 3) pretty much ran out of fuel upon reaching Mach 2, and as noted in the quote below, no air refueling.

 

 

But you are talking about an F-105 as a very long range escort bomber - which Im not saying was not feasible - but for a start it needs to be where the bombers are to protect them - so running away at low level (which might be its only option ) is where as a MiG-21 driver Id be happy to see it. Secondly the time it can spend in afterburner itself would probably be less than the Interceptor which is only about 10 miles from a friendly runway.

 

 

(14)....Too, if one had reequipped the entire US Navy and Air Force with MiG-21s, the picture would have become even more horrible because the MiG could not carry a bomb load; nor could it have flown from Korat to Hanoi, and it did not have the support of tankers. Had the flight taken place over Acapulco instead of Hanoi, it would have been no contest at all. In short, the acolytes are using a false analogy to compare the MiGs with the F-4s and F-105s—it is as clear a case of likening apples to oranges as one could desire.

 

What is this bloke on - Accuses people of using a false analogy - then uses a totally stupid one instead!

 

Does this boyd book actually mention the US would have been better off only using MiG-21s then - can someone confirm it actually states that??

Im sure there was a reason for having different types of aircraft

 

Notice that he doesnt mention that the USAF did deploy short range fighters with poor bomb loads - F-104C, F-102A, and F-5C over North Vietnam (with varying results admittedly)- but I mean how did they get there with such short ranges - Of course a MiG-21 with a refuelling probe and some bombs - thats the same thing isnt it.

 

Versions of the MiG-21 and MiG-17 carried bombs in North Vietnam service - they were used to bomb the south during the 1974 invasion - and MiG-17s made attempted attacks on US shipping (According to Osprey books)

Edited April 22, 2010 by MigBuster

[Lt. James Cater 62]

"Does this boyd book actually mention the US would have been better off only using MiG-21s then - can someone confirm it actually states that??

Im sure there was a reason for having different types of aircraft"

 

No where in the book does it come up. nor in anything else i've read about the the man and his works.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

MiGbuster, good question on F-105 high level J75 endurance on afterburner; one I've been struggling with. To get back to the last tanker may require dry thrust at high altitude. I assume escort flights staggered in time, by maybe a minute (*guess*), rear flights backing up earlier flights. In addition, this is what return escorts are for; to provide protection to vulnerable aircraft returning to the last tankers. For something the size of USSR, you need to have tankers penetrate over hostile territory, and they must have escorts as well. A few tanker crews in Vietnam went deep for fighters that got into trouble. Tanker support like this quickly blows up astronomically in expense, which would make a campaign like this a challenge. And, deep tanker support requires maintaining high altitude air/electronic domination to some point into enemy lands.

 

--

 

The quote was a footnote (number 14) to the Boydmania article, and it does not state that Coram's book claimed USAF would have done better with MiG-21. The author is using sarcasm to address the desire or "wish" we often see today for having had small daylight dogfighters during Vietnam. I'm not a fan of much sarcasm, and there is far too much here. The point is fascinating however: Migbuster, were the F-5, F-102, and F-104 used extensively in the Hanoi area? Granted, if USAF used the MiG-21 (or Mirage III), it (they) would almost certainly be given air refueling.

 

For Vietnam era, of greater interest are the questions poasted earlier. Assuming even better "fictional" single seat high performance fighters, such as larger wing F-104 (more load), F11F-1F, or F8U-3, could they...

 

 

(1) Use the Combat Tree as well as two seaters?

 

(2) Deal with the communications problems as well as two seaters?

 

(3) Detect and avoid SAMs as well as two seaters?

 

(4) Have as good a chance at getting back to a tanker as well as the larger two seaters?

 

Thanks!