F-105 air superiority fighter variant.

[MigBuster 2,884]

--

 

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!

 

 

If he was being sarcastic about using MiG-21s - he's not being sarcastic about the other claims in that footnote - just lazy or intentionally misleading perhaps.

 

Both the USAF F-4s and F-105s needed A-A refueling in and out - so thats kind of a given whatever Tactical jet is used - Guess he thinks you cant put a probe on a MiG.

 

The F-102 and F-104 were used to Escort bombers over USAF route packs for a period of time - maybe an improvement on the F-100D. Both are lighter energy fighters like the MiG-21 (although the MiG might have been more agile). Point being they got to North Vietnam okay.

 

Dont know where the F-5 was used over the North - not enough information - but it still got there (apparently).

 

Anyway the closest US fighter was the WVR F-8 - which could use energy, radar and to some extent agility, and AIM-9s - and had the highest kills per engagement ratio in Rolling Thunder (F-8 Crusader units in action) - so although the VPAF "claimed" a lot it performed as well or better than the F-4 in that period. Obviously no where near the Mirage 3 though in terms of kills - that had more targets admittedly :)

 

oh could go on forever with that pos paper! - but wont

 

 

----------------

 

1) Combat tree came in about 71 from what I know with about a 60 mile range - but only have accounts of it being used on F-4D/E and Iranian F-14As. Think it changed the radar symbology - but not to sure whether it was a 2 man op.

 

3) You might say that unlikely if it had to be done manually - which is why they try to automate it all now - back then the backseater could monitor the RHAW scope, look out side and put out chaff.

 

 

4) Depends on the fuel consumption, weight and drag of the airframe - and how much thrust you need to keep your energy up.

Edited April 23, 2010 by MigBuster

[column5 63]

Dont know where the F-5 was used over the North - not enough information - but it still got there (apparently).

 

I'm almost certain that the F-5C only saw combat in the South, at least while the USAF were flying them.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Its from "F-5 Tigers Over Vietnam" by Anthony J Tambini

 

He claims - as part of Phase 2 of the Skoshi Tiger project, flying from DaNang, they flew primarily CAP/MiGCAP over North Vietnam, with bombing missions in the North also - typical flight times were 4 - 6 hours with A-A refuelling. Not loads though - North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos sorties were totalled 571 together.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

Put three 150 gallon drop tanks on a F-5 and you could go farther than one thinks such in a tiny(By USAF standards)plane. The J-85 engine is pretty fuel efficient.

 

Has anyone thought of how the scenario would play out? I'm assuming the bombers would be based in the UK. Would the fighters be based there also? Or would it be at the bases seen in WOE?

 

Also, what would be the deepest targets to hit in the Soviet Union? Past the Urals?

 

 

This really gives a lot to think about!

[macelena 1,070]

Talking about the F-5E, i think that South Vietnam used them once the US withdrew, proving to be a good fighter. It was quite better than the MiG-21 as VPAF could find out when captured and used some examples, and probably better than any other light fighter in that time such as Mirage III or F-104s, by its polivalence , ease to mantain and air combat capabilities.

 

However, 1972 is a bit late, a plane like that would have served quite well lets say five years before, and if you are talking about an excellent weapons system and range it is not what you are looking after.

 

Anyway, i don´t think that it was the lack of good fighters what screwed the things on SEA for the South and their allies.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

Judging from the rest of the thread, the time span seems to be early to late 60s.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Yea early to late 60s is prime Thud Time.

 

Light weight un-refuelled B-29B from England *might* get to Moscow and back, but there may be better basing available. For best terrain game play, I assume USSR begins to disperse eastward again, far beyond the move made after June 1941. US will have to build a ring of fire; bases surrounding the Soviet Union. Some locations and rough time lines for use...

 

Campaign start 1947:

UK, West Germany, Japan, Alaska, southern Iran, Po Valley (nice terrain in game),...

 

1947+:

Korea, Turkey, Northern India (RAF), Norway, Sweden (campaign variable, and don't forget SAAB), Finland (possible campaign variable), northern Iran, Aleutians if needed,...

 

1950s:

Greenland, Canada?

 

Most good targets might be in range of "traditional" bases in Europe in 1947, but not after USSR moves enough stuff eastward.

 

There is only supporting ground warfare at the edges, mostly to gain or protect, or to deny, forward offensive bases to strike from. Shucks a whole campaign could be dedicated to local tactical air/ground warfare set up around the main strategic strike campaign. China's civil war, Eastern Europe, Iran, and Korea can offer ideas for this. I can't think much about this for lack of time, but others may find it more interesting, and ignore the SAC vs PVO stuff.

 

 

I have been thinking of F-5C optimized for day escort to replace, or to accent, F-104. Good for protecting advance tankers against less advanced attackers, especially if something like EC-121 can tag along -- a topic that needs attention but I have not done so yet. F-5 can help maintain air dominance at lower altitudes, if the opposition is limited to smaller fighters (-21, -7) because of the bombing or sufficient continued attacks on larger PVO bases. PVO may get behind the curve, like Luftwaffe did in 1944.

 

This is the Map I plan around. Fantastic terrain east of the Urals. Lake Baikal can be tiled on its own, at 455 meters, and doubling up exclusion regions.

 

[+streakeagle 871]

The F-8 didn't "perform" better than the F-4, it simply had pilots well trained in air-to-air combat tactics. Something US Navy F-4s did not have until Top Gun and USAF F-4s never got until after Vietnam. All the way back to WWI, people in the know knew it wasn't the crate that determined the outcome but the pilot unless there was a huge gap in technology or problems caused by mandatory doctrine. USAF pilots in Vietnam were not the only ones who suffered as a result of doctrine and rules of engagement. NVAF pilots got roasted a few times due to the limitations and failures of their GCI system. Operation Bolo being the most famous case. Had the MiG-21 pilots not had to wait for GCI instructions to run for cover, they probably would have lost only 1 or 2 instead of 6 or 7 MiG-21s that day. The weather was horrible and it was easy to hide in the clouds and go home. But GCI was stunned by the discovery that the inbound flights were air-to-air F-4s and not strike F-105s. They hesitated way too long before issuing orders to run for it.

 

If there had been more officers like Robin Olds and they hadn't been forced to do things like fly Fluid Four and switch to AIM-4s rather than adapt their aircraft to AIM-9Ds, the early years in Vietnam probably would have gone so well that there wouldn't be much to fight by 1972.

[MigBuster 2,884]

The F-8 is being used as an example of a lighter more agile/energy type in combat over SEA with AIM-9 and gun armament and it (or its pilots) did very well in terms of kills per engagement (the best of any US fighter apparently).

 

 

The pilots were good - but unlike in the F-4B/C/D they could get on a MiGs tail easier (for example even when its spotted by the MiG) giving a much better chance of an AIM-9B kill - and fall back on the guns if the missiles failed.

 

Even trained F-4 pilots are still dependent on poor missile technology in RT along with the ROE - with a mix of fantastic AIM-4D, AIM-9B, and AIM-7D/Es .

 

They might have got shot down less knowing how to fight the MiG-17/21s - but you cant say the kill rate would have been any better - the AIM-7 would always have to be fired in close - and an experienced F-4B/C/D driver still needs to get on the tail of a MiG to use the G limited AIM-4D/9B - not so easy in an early F-4 if a MiG knows you are there - luckily in most cases they probably didn't.

 

Things would have improved when better missiles came along - which they did anyway.

Edited April 25, 2010 by MigBuster

[+streakeagle 871]

F-8s could not get onto the tail of a MiG-17 any easier than an F-4. If they were getting onto the tail of a MiG-17 in a level turn, the MiG-17 wasn't turning or had hit speeds where it couldn't turn.

 

Statitics such as kills per engagement reflect the entire war. The F-8 had good pilots the entire time. If you look at USN F-4 units in 1972, you will find that they did every bit as well as F-8 units.

 

The three principal reasons F-8s did so well compared to the F-4 over the same time frame (1966-1968) were:

1) They got most of their kills with the AIM-9D, a missile far superior to the AIM-9B.

2) While their guns did not directly contribute to their success, the extensive training they received on how to dogfight to use the guns got them into position to use the AIM-9D despite being far less maneuverable than their MiG-17 targets.

3) They rarely had to fight MiG-21s.

 

Even the F-105 got a significant number of kills against the MiG-17 almost exclusively with guns. Maneuverability was not the key. Being aware of the MiG-17 and taking the correct course of action to counter it was the key. Tecnically, F-105s got more kills than F-8s, so we should get rid of the F-8 and F-4 and switch to the F-105?

 

Put those same F-8 pilots in F-4Bs with AIM-9Ds and you would have gotten the same or better results in the same engagements. Take the USAF pilots and throw them in F-8s and watch them do as bad as they did in the F-4C despite having AIM-9Ds, because they still won't have the ACM skills it takes to beat an angles fighter with an energy fighter.

[column5 63]

F-8s could not get onto the tail of a MiG-17 any easier than an F-4.

 

I can't buy into this particular statement. The F-8 has greater agility and generally viceless handling qualities at all speeds above stall in its favor. Over a large number of engagements, with equally competent pilots in the F-8 and F-4, I would expect the F-8 to emerge with a slight advantage in kills. Of course there is no way to prove that definitively so we will have to agree to disagree.

[MigBuster 2,884]

F-8s could not get onto the tail of a MiG-17 any easier than an F-4. If they were getting onto the tail of a MiG-17 in a level turn, the MiG-17 wasn't turning or had hit speeds where it couldn't turn.

 

I would dispute that as Ive already said - despite the MiG-17s advantage if the F-8 was a more agile airframe in the horizontal and vertical than the F-4 it should have made it easier for pilots to get a better 180 shot.

 

Statitics such as kills per engagement reflect the entire war. The F-8 had good pilots the entire time. If you look at USN F-4 units in 1972, you will find that they did every bit as well as F-8 units.

 

By 1972 the missiles, radar, and radar coverage had improved. Also some F-4s had Combat Tree so there was a vast improvement in tech/avionics which also was a factor.

 

 

3) They rarely had to fight MiG-21s.

 

Not sure how it wasnt a match for MiG-21s - the F-8 was hardly slow - you could almost say they were comparible. Unless you are referring to F-4s providing escort where the speed might have come in handy. In a lot of cases though it seems MiG-21s just appeared from nowhere, fired their missiles, then got out of there before the escorts could do anything.

 

 

Even the F-105 got a significant number of kills against the MiG-17 almost exclusively with guns. Maneuverability was not the key. Being aware of the MiG-17 and taking the correct course of action to counter it was the key. Tecnically, F-105s got more kills than F-8s, so we should get rid of the F-8 and F-4 and switch to the F-105?

 

Yes you will notice I have already mentioned that a few times in this thread - but that also comes down to engagements as I have said above - i.e how many times did F-105s and F-8s get the chance to go after MiGs!

 

Put those same F-8 pilots in F-4Bs with AIM-9Ds and you would have gotten the same or better results in the same engagements. Take the USAF pilots and throw them in F-8s and watch them do as bad as they did in the F-4C despite having AIM-9Ds, because they still won't have the ACM skills it takes to beat an angles fighter with an energy fighter.

 

There is always the pilot factor but I still think they might have done better in the F-8 during the early time period - but thats just me.

 

Anyway not glad I bothered mentioning the F-4 at all in the example above - which after all replaced the F-8 and had many good points.

Edited April 25, 2010 by MigBuster

[Spinners 15,986]

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,26120.690.html

 

Check out the 'what if' Republic F-115A Thunderknight on this thread. Indeed, check out the entire thread. Genius.