F-8 Crusader vs MiG-17 in Vietnam

[ShrikeHawk 384]

Just wanted to toss in this in real quick.

 

C5 - I tried out both your F-8C Early and Late in Hard mode, which I'm not used to...and I still love them both. Granted, I couldn't yank 'n bank the way I'm used to and I actually had to e-fight a lot more. Still, I ended up with 9 kills (6 gun kills/3 missile kills) in two missions. This F-8C FM rules!

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

What is ACM?

 

No eyes means no manuever. More skilled eyes means more ability to confidently manuever. That 2nd seat is part of ACM.

 

If I recall(), the merge is the most important part of general ACM. With a hardware enthusiast in back, the F-4 with big radar and Sparrows can have some advantage here, as it did over MiG-21s in merges, although one often cannot set up the fight one wants. The back seater, big radar, and Sparrows with luck can change the numbers before close manuever begins, and so are part Air Combat Manuever, although not Air Dogfight Manuever, or ADM. I just made that up.

 

 

In the end, did it work to bring F-4 crews up to F-8 pilot training for close combat, turning those extra scope reading eyes into extra trained dogfight eyes?

 

c5::

Training in the two fighter communities was very different: F-8 pilots were trained at the Fleet Air Gunnery Unit and concentrated on close-combat, while the F-4 crews focus almost entirely on intercepts and medium-range missile engagements. The rest of the story is well-known, with the experience in Vietnam highlighting the need for a renaissance in ACM training resulting in the establishment of Top Gun, which taught pilots how to use the F-4, and later the F-14, to best advantage over smaller, lighter, more maneuverable opponents...like the F-8.

 

I guess it depends on the F-8 having enough superiority in turning, handling, less visibility, etc... Enough to overcome the F-4's merge advantage, bonus eyes, and larger air-air weapon load, excepting gun for gunless Phantom?

 

How did visibility out of the cockpit compare for both planes? I can go either way here.

 

Another interesting question -- too many already I know: In disengaging from a close fight, which would have general advantage, under what relative conditions? I have not thought about this.

[+Gepard 10,899]

There is a difference between "paper" performance and "real" performance. The question is wheter a pilot can fly his plane till to the edge or not.

An example from WW2. The FW-190 had a much better "paper" performance than the Me-109. But the pilots felt more comfortable with the 109. They knew how far they could drive the plane. They got warnings from the 109 before it became a beast etc, while the 190 became beasty without warnings.

An other example. MiG-15. Its a fact that the MiG-15 was more agile than the Sabre. But the MiG had the tendency to become beasty at high speeds at high altitudes. So only experienced pilots could drive it to the edge. The same with the MiG-23 or the Fokker DR1 in WW1. In the hand of an outstanding pilot it were outstanding planes, but underperformer in the hands of an average pilot.

So i see the F-8 vs F-4. The Phantom was the more "comfortable feeling" plane for the pilot.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Gepard

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

Well, look at it this way...decades after their introduction into service, which plane is still in front-line use?

 

Just the F-4. Upgraded, sure, but still the same airframe, and no better a dogfighter today than it was in the 1950s.

 

However, which was the last to serve on carriers? The F-8 for France, years after the US and UK retired their carrier-borne F-4s.

 

The problem is that France only operated small carriers (265m-long, 24000t, far below any Forrestal or Kitty Hawk, not even the Essex-class): they missed room to accomodate large aircraft like F-4s, and the huge stores of fuel and ammo these heavy planes needed to be fully effective as long-range support aircraft during an extended campaign. And contrary to the UK, France never fully developped an outstanding versatile VTOL aircraft like the Harrier. One of these carriers is now the Brazilian São Paulo, and I believe she operates nothing heavier than A-4s and helos. So, talking in an operational, not tactical point of view, the F-8 can be a good choice for small units seeking for pure CAP/ air superiority missions, as well as the A-4 for nations planning sea-ground operations. But in both cases, a versatile aircraft like the F-4 (or F-18 now) is badly missing.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

Same think for the SE5a and the Camel during WWI. The SE5a was better in acceleration and dive, and the more securing of both, but the Camel turned tighter, and you could expect for unexpectable feats from it. It was known that if the Camel didn't kill you on your first flights, you were on the good way to become an ace.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Capitaine, perfect point about small French carriers: F-8 > F-0.

 

 

Gepard::

So i see the F-8 vs F-4. The Phantom was the more "comfortable feeling" plane for the pilot.

Why? The one thing apparently agreed upon here is F-8 has better handling at least for high angles of attack. I don't know much about that, but I can go with it. Enough to compensate for lack of second seat and merge disadvantage?

 

Butt, I do know in all the cars I've driven, the one I most felt comfortable in, really the only one, was big Ford F-150 truck with only the limited power assist steering and 300-6 / 4spd granny stick, no AC no nothing lol it was made for Mis-sip state purchase but was sold to public. I could do insane things with that I guess because the limits were easy to know.

[column5 62]

I guess it depends on the F-8 having enough superiority in turning, handling, less visibility, etc... Enough to overcome the F-4's merge advantage, bonus eyes, and larger air-air weapon load, excepting gun for gunless Phantom?

 

I personally don't have the experience to answer that question, but both the US Navy and Air Force had determined that the paper advantages of a larger missile load and BVR capabilities were not adequate to the tactical situations faced in Vietnam. Both services created specialized schools and units to teach pure ACM, even going so far as to set up the Red Eagles secretly flying captured Soviet aircraft as adversaries. Both services then incorporated these lessons in their new aircraft: the F-14 and F-15 were both large aircraft but ACM was taken into account in the design process where it was not when the Phantom was designed. (As an aside, note that the F-15A is a single-seat aircraft, perhaps indicating that the USAF did not see the benefits of the second crew member that some are promoting here). Then, to supplement the large fighters both services introduced lightweight fighters in the form of the F-16 and F/A-18 which possessed dogfighting capabilities superior to anything in the US inventory since the F-86.

[UnknownPilot 33]

I personally don't have the experience to answer that question, but both the US Navy and Air Force had determined that the paper advantages of a larger missile load and BVR capabilities were not adequate to the tactical situations faced in Vietnam. Both services created specialized schools and units to teach pure ACM, even going so far as to set up the Red Eagles secretly flying captured Soviet aircraft as adversaries. Both services then incorporated these lessons in their new aircraft: the F-14 and F-15 were both large aircraft but ACM was taken into account in the design process where it was not when the Phantom was designed. (As an aside, note that the F-15A is a single-seat aircraft, perhaps indicating that the USAF did not see the benefits of the second crew member that some are promoting here). Then, to supplement the large fighters both services introduced lightweight fighters in the form of the F-16 and F/A-18 which possessed dogfighting capabilities superior to anything in the US inventory since the F-86.

 

Exactly. There is a lot of talk about a second seat as an inherent advangate in ACM, and it may well bring something to the field, but... it also means a larger aircraft and more weight, plus more lives put at risk. IF you need that for working a super complicated (to use) radar and weapon system, them it makes sense, and the benefit of a "second pair of eyes" can be cited. But if you have no absolute need for that second seat, then as you pointed out, it's not really worth putting it in (ie, not really all that great an advantage). F-15, F-16, F-18 (early), F-22, and now F-35.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

I personally don't have the experience to answer that question, but both the US Navy and Air Force had determined that the paper advantages of a larger missile load and BVR capabilities were not adequate to the tactical situations faced in Vietnam.

 

The most advanced BVR capabilities in that time were of absolutely no use when illogical, s**king rules of engagement required a lockon AND a tally. It's just like using a sniper rifle at bayonet range.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

I would make it an easy descision in a close dogfight;-) The las gunfighter vs gunless phantom!

 

ok I love them both but hope I point it out

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Good points C5.

 

That 2nd seat in 1960s fighters were not because of close dogfighting, but that 2nd seat happened to come in spankin' handy when the aircraft engaged in such combat. Thus the importance of it here. I imagine the reason for a second seat went away as transistors replaced vacume tubes by the time F-15 was designed. USAF F-15 combat use was mostly if not entirely BVR where the second seat is filled with the more effective tranistors rather than the old vacume tubes. If not for that advance in equipment design, I'll lay odds the F-15 would have been a two seater. Think about it. I'd be interested in ideas lifted from Israeli or others' use of F-15 in close dogfights with guns and advanced IRM which I'm *not* familiar with -- thanks if so.

 

 

Pilot::

There is a lot of talk about a second seat as an inherent advangate in ACM, and it may well bring something to the field, but...

LoL

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Yea later F-4 radars had transitors but that's my way of saying advances in electronics. Sorry for that.

 

I'm not too familiar with F-15 use in the various US/Iraq wars, so not much on close dogfights and AIM-9 use.

[UnknownPilot 33]

The F-16 was designed purely for in-close fighting, ACM, if you wish. It only got BVR capability later on as an upgrade. A backseater was not deemed important enough when not needed for doing radar twiddlng. You can "lol" and focus on the F-15 and BVR, but you're just voluntarily ignoring the point.

 

How many seats in the Mirage or EuroFighter (non-trainer)?

[ShrikeHawk 384]

I think it's hard to guage how important a GIB is during ACM. Primarily, his role is to keep an eye on his gear, isn't it? So how much help is really when it comes to watching the skies.

 

Thing is, "there's the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way." The Navy has a habit of doing things they way want to and ignoring trends set by the other branches. So the Navy often insists on twin engines because if one engine dies you still have the other. Bailing out over the ocean (sometimes full of sharks) is a lot more problematic than bailing out over land. I expect the Navy has similar reasoning when it comes to seats aboard a fighter.

[MigBuster 2,877]

USAF F-15 combat use was mostly if not entirely BVR where the second seat is filled with the more effective tranistors rather than the old vacume tubes. If not for that advance in equipment design, I'll lay odds the F-15 would have been a two seater. Think about it. I'd be interested in ideas lifted from Israeli or others' use of F-15 in close dogfights with guns and advanced IRM which I'm *not* familiar with -- thanks if so.

 

 

 

Well for info IDF F-15 kills were mostly WVR (Even the AIM-7 kills)

1979-1985 15.5 x AIM-7, 25.5 x Python 3, 3 x AIM-9, 4 x Cannon

 

Thats from "Israeli F-15 units in combat"

 

 

USAF in 91 could go BVR if both the IFF and AWACs declared an unfriendly - but even so a USAF F-15C had to merge and get into a traditional turning fight with a MiG-29A when the IFF ID'd it as friendly!

 

Thats from "F-15C Eagle units in combat"

 

Anyway thats for another thread

[MigBuster 2,877]

That is impossible to answer SE and you know it. It will ALWAYS boil down to what a person thinks. No matter what data says what. One person will always dispute it. F-4 pilots had a hell of a time in Top Gun against F-8 drivers, that is a fact. (Per ADM Gilcrist himself) I mean seriously what do you want, no one is going to throw their hands in the air and say "Yes SE you are right, the F-4 was the better fighter, you win." Not going to happen. You can throw all the data, facts and figures at me with 14 paragraphs of dictation and I will NEVER change my mind. The F-8 was the Mig Master and when you were out of F-8's, you were out of fighters. Nuff said.

 

I think thats enough said on the matter really (for now )

[xclusiv8 35]

I think it's hard to guage how important a GIB is during ACM. Primarily, his role is to keep an eye on his gear, isn't it? So how much help is really when it comes to watching the skies.

 

Thing is, "there's the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way." The Navy has a habit of doing things they way want to and ignoring trends set by the other branches. So the Navy often insists on twin engines because if one engine dies you still have the other. Bailing out over the ocean (sometimes full of sharks) is a lot more problematic than bailing out over land. I expect the Navy has similar reasoning when it comes to seats aboard a fighter.

 

I am not claiming i know anything about this but i just thought id share my opinion.

 

In a way i understand the 2 engine "rule" On a boat you have limited resources and loosing a fighter is a big loss. So if you can have a higher chance of getting it back with 2 engines the option should be simple.

 

My piece of the pie

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Thanks Migbuster for the F-15 usage info. I also need to look at acig's articles on Iran's extensive F-4 operations.

 

 

Shrike::

I think it's hard to guage how important a GIB is during ACM. Primarily, his role is to keep an eye on his gear, isn't it? So how much help is really when it comes to watching the skies.

 

When the aircraft engaged in close dogfight, F-4 aircrew learned that primary role changed -- fast. Its hard for us to guage since we were not there, and we post-modern TheSims players's think of single seat fighters, because our game developers do. I'd imagine the people who were there talked alot about it. You have to know the importance of watching the skies (and below) for situational awareness, using all the eyes you have, and then some if available, and then communicate it all through Triassic Period radios. Think single seat fighter wingmen and how they depend on each other for helping to watch what's going on around them during the heat -- well at least NAVY Loose Deuce wingmen. SA among professional wingmen is everything. The quote below is from a good paragraph of an interview...

 

 

George Spangenberg::

:

:

Anyway, we were talking to the Israelis, and they brought up one-man versus two-man, they were probably getting ready to buy F-4s at the time. When I made the statement the Commander said, "I don't disagree." He said, "having that second guy in back, radar operator, is just like having a wing man who doesn't get lost."

 

Page 2 ~> http://www.georgespangenberg.com/history2.htm

At the start of that paragraph, Spangenberg says he considered the days of single seat fighters were over. At the time, he may have been right. But today, with advances in post-modern avionics and weapons, perhaps he was not right at the time anymore, as Baugher notes in his F-15 history quoted below. I'd also add the back seat "wing man" always has good comms with his pilot, assuming the intercomm between the seats works well. Did they in Vietnam era F-4s?

 

 

Baugher::

The RFP also specified that a one-pilot cockpit was to be used, the development of more advanced computer systems, radar and electronics being thought to make the radar intercept officer unnecessary

 

Part 1: Origin of F-15 ~> http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15.html

 

The F-15's primary concept role was an attempt to mix long range BVR engagement and close dogfighting into one box. Compare with, say, dedicated small dogfighters like F-16. Things have changed even more since then, what with avionics and weapons now allowing single seat F-16 dogfighters to perform some BVR as well. I've *never* thought of it before until C5 poasted above about USAF and F-15, but without that advance in electronics, F-15 might have been a two seater. Always remember, you heard here it at CombatAce first.

[+streakeagle 866]

I found a real gem in favor of F-4 was better once pilots were trained from here: http://dukecunningham.org/forum/read.php?f=1&i=1425&t=1425

 

BTW, Paul....you said the F-8 would consistently beat the F-4. That was prior to mid-1969. After the Top Gun tactics were being taught to Phantom drivers, it was rare after then for the F-8 to beat the F-4. Randy and I ALWAYS come out on top over the F-8's.

 

Even had a squadron vs squadron 1 v 1 or 2 v 2 "friendly" competiton F-4 vs F-8 over a few hops. We waxed them silly. So to honor the victory of VF-96 and F-4 over the F-8's....Randy had a special "gift" to be presented at happy hour that Friday.

 

When the time was right Randy presented a couple of models....An F-8 with an F-4 mounted on its back with a big dick sticking up the F-8 tailpipe.

 

;>)

 

For every F-8 pilot that believes the Crusader was best, there will be an F-4 pilot AND RIO that disagrees :)

They also mentioned that having a backseater made paperwork chores when not flying much easier.

[+streakeagle 866]

As far as number of seats go, some would argue one seat is too many with modern technology. Pull more g's without a pilot. No more POWs. But any aircraft that has a high workload still gets two seats: F-14D, F-15E, F/A-18F. If it didn't cost so much weight with a corresponding increase in drag and decrease in range, most planes would still be two-seat. You can tell the USAF created the F-22 and strongly influenced the F-35: single seat.

[+streakeagle 866]

Another quote from the same page by the same guy countering the F-8 guy's claim that F-8s were still smoking F-4s in 72:

 

F8-vs F-4. The only time I saw an F-8 kill an F-4 was when an F-8 crashed into our hangar at Miramar....destroyed several F-4's and killed 12-14 of our men and a couple of VF 92's. Unfortunately it was 3 days before Christmas, 1969. Fortunately, many were on Christmas leave or would have killed many more.

 

One more that is really important:

And Paul....thinking about itlast night...I will concede that there are good agressive and mediocre pilots in both a/c and a good F-8 pilot can always beat a mediocre F-4 jock. TG or not. And STILL....no F-8 ever beat us when I flew with Randy.

We had a mediocre pilot check into 96 and he was a real wuss. Randy and I were told to go out and pump this guy up. I'd fly his backseat and his RIO would fly with Randy. I don't think he ever pulled more than 4-5 G's.....he just didn't want to bend that airplane and frustrated the hell out of all of us.

It all came to a head on 10 May 72 during that giant furball, he bugged out...left the group, left his wingman (Matt Connely) and went back to the boat and quit. Aaron Campbell. Any F-8 driver could have beaten him with one hand tied behind their back.

 

The margin between the planes had to be small, because it is very clear from this statement that this F-4 never lost to an F-8 over many fights. It is always more about the pilot quality than the plane. I would like to know if any of the F-8s they beat were flown by well-known quality F-8 pilots... Oh wait, I forgot, all F-8 pilots are aces because their plane was so good. Except that the only Navy aces were an F-4 crew?

 

Forget the F-4/F-8 debate, just go read those forums. Real pilots telling their day to day life during Vietnam era. Sad, but fascinating.

Edited April 30, 2010 by streakeagle

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

I had read the narrative from one of the USAF F-4 pilots involved in Operation Bolo (I don't remember which one). He said that he was admiring about his RIO constantly twisting his own neck in impossible postures to detect any threats or opportunities.

 

Actually, in TK's or other sims, I'd have found it nice that on two-seaters, the RIO doesn't seem to be an ornamental dead ballast. I'd have found it immersive to hear from time to time his voice warning you about oncoming threats in your 5 or 7, or indicating what does a targetted plane having just evaded from your own visual range ("The bastard keeps on turning", "He's diving", "He climbs like hell"), or just congratulating or shouting on you (like in Il-2).

[Hubertus 0]

F-4 is the greatest:D:D

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbvtKcZR8ms

[column5 62]

Individual anecdotes don't serve either side in this debate. For the historian, primary sources are often the most problematic because it is nearly impossible for a person who experiences an event first hand to report on it objectively. Its human nature. In this case, we have two guys saying (and I paraphrase) that their side beat the other side 100% of the time. Clearly, that cannot be true.

 

Another source that we can't rely on is the outcome of structured training engagements at schools like Top Gun. In a training scenario, if the student does everything right according to the doctrine and the engagement is coming down to a test of raw pilot skill, then the instructor is obliged to let the student win to reinforce the efficacy of the doctrine. If the student is making mistakes, the instructor is obliged to exploit those mistakes and win in order to graphically illustrate the result of deviation from the doctrine. So these engagements do not have much bearing on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft being flown.

[UnknownPilot 33]

I had read the narrative from one of the USAF F-4 pilots involved in Operation Bolo (I don't remember which one). He said that he was admiring about his RIO constantly twisting his own neck in impossible postures to detect any threats or opportunities.

 

Actually, in TK's or other sims, I'd have found it nice that on two-seaters, the RIO doesn't seem to be an ornamental dead ballast. I'd have found it immersive to hear from time to time his voice warning you about oncoming threats in your 5 or 7, or indicating what does a targetted plane having just evaded from your own visual range ("The bastard keeps on turning", "He's diving", "He climbs like hell"), or just congratulating or shouting on you (like in Il-2).

 

 

Which generation/title/patch level are you playing? I don't get those call outs and would LOVE them. I get the "you got a bandit on your 6 o clock" or "he right behind you!" or warnings of gun and missile fire, but nothing that indicates how or where the opponent is flying (turning, diving, climbing, etc) that you mention.

 

Until I read that, I was thinking the back seater was modeled quite well and my only complaint was the inability to turn it off when he shouldn't be there. But now it seems I'm missing out. :(