Oyster Flight Loadout on May 10, 1972

[+streakeagle 871]

While poking around looking for certain F-4 info, I stumbled on to a crew chief's photos of Major Lodge's F-4 Phantom just before he was shot down on May 10, 1972. They can be found here: https://plus.google.com/photos/116952585503241705522/albums/5756583234734344785?sqi&sqsi

 

Upon close inspection, I saw something odd: instead of 4 x AIM-9s, there were 2 x AIM-4s. As of May 10, 1972, F-4Ds were still carrying AIM-4 Falcons while acting as the primary CAP for the largest air activity of the entire war! No wonder the majority of USAF F-4 kills were with AIM-7s. On top of that, I noticed ECM pods in two locations: ALQ-101 in the front left Sparrow well and ALQ-71 on the left inner plyon under an AIM-4. I would have guessed that they would only being carrying two AIM-7s in the rear wells (as was common since a centerline tank prevents launching the forward Sparrows), but per Roger Locher, Major Lodge took three AIM-7 shots on May 10.

 

So for those wanting to recreate this legendary fight where a dedicated CAP of 4xF-4Ds engaged 2-4xMiG-21s (the VPAF claims 2, the USAF claims 4) and 4xJ-6(MiG-19S)s, the loadouts is:

 

2xAIM-4 (one to the inside of each inner wing pylon), ALQ-71 pod on left inner wing pylon, ALQ-101 in forward left AIM-7 bay, and 3xAIM-7 in remaining AIM-7 bays.

I have been unable to confirm the fuel tank loadout, but it was probably 2 x wing tanks + centerline.

Google Plus went away, but fortunately, I saved Joey Hill's great photos of F-4D 65-0784.

Edited July 11, 2021 by streakeagle

[MigBuster 2,887]

Seem to remember one reason AIM-7 was preferred by the USAF over AIM-9/4 for the higher launch G..............will need to find the quote. I think some AIM-4Ds were fired in 72.....at least 5 attempts from F-4Ds with 0 kills (Red Baron).

Edited April 12, 2016 by MigBuster

[+streakeagle 871]

The USAF AIM-9's actually regressed. The AIM-9E performed the same or worse than the AIM-9B and the early AIM-9J performed even worse. Had the USAF accepted the USN AIM-9D/G/H development path instead of going over to the AIM-4 and then trying to develop its own AIM-9, there certainly would have been several more kills. If the Navy had committed to slats and a gun, they might have done a little better, too. The Navy was more stubborn on slats than the USAF was on training. They bit their tongue and finally partially installed slats on the F-4S, admitting the USAF was right about the the aircraft being part of the problem instead of just being a training issue.

[+streakeagle 871]

Robin Olds had already long ago established that the AIM-4 was worthless junk. He had F-4s in his unit immediately field modded by talented mechanics to go back to the AIM-9B. Units in the field wanted the Navy AIM-9s, but their F-4s did not have the pylons/plumbing to support their seeker cooling. Inter-service rivalry can be healthy and good, like competition in a free market. But in Vietnam (and later), it got in the way of doing their principal job -- providing effective military power for the USA. I don't understand why any AIM-4s were being deployed, much less to the dedicated air superiority units like the Triple Nickel.

An interesting fact is that Robin Olds couldn't stand radar warning receivers. He felt that they were nothing more than an unnecessary distraction in a situation already suffering from information overload. He always turned his off. In an environment like Hanoi, threat radars were in every direction and causing continuous alarms. He didn't want or need a light, a buzzer or a green screen to tell him he was surrounded by radar directed SAMs and AAA. He felt that you couldn't effectively defend against a SAM unless someone had eyes on it anyway, so he stuck to visual scanning techniques for keeping up with SAM threats. Of course, he had an amazing, almost superhuman, ability to maintain situational awareness and equally important, he was flying in a daytime environment where his eyes could potentially do an equal or better job of sorting out threats as long as there wasn't too much cloud cover.

Edited April 13, 2016 by streakeagle

[mppd 16]

The photo with ECM pods on an intermediate pylon as well as a fwd Sparrow well is very rare. One almost never sees this combo, usually on the pylons or in the wells, but not one at each location. Wish I had a million photos of F-4s in those days. I was trying to get out of High School and over to Thailand to do just that, but could not graduate in time for the fun and games. Enclosed art from Mark Styling shows no fin tip color on the airplane at the time of the shootdown by the way. Warning placard on left intake splitter plate indicates Combat Tree self-destruct installed. 4-position AN/APS-107A RHAW antenna housings on nose just behind radome would not have been present at this time, nor would triangular reinforcing plate on stabs, nor black antenna on leading edge of wing...

Edited April 13, 2016 by mppd

[MigBuster 2,887]

The USAF AIM-9's actually regressed. The AIM-9E performed the same or worse than the AIM-9B and the early AIM-9J performed even worse. 

 

Seems the improvements on the J were mostly at higher altitudes (also doubled the sea level G over the E). Most of the combat firings were at lower levels where it seems to have been no better than the E.

 

An interesting fact is that Robin Olds couldn't stand radar warning receivers. He felt that they were nothing more than an unnecessary distraction in a situation already suffering from information overload. He always turned his off. In an environment like Hanoi, threat radars were in every direction and causing continuous alarms. 

 

I suppose no guarantee the RHAW picked up the launch anyway.

 

Another annoyance on the radio was apparently Disco...............being described total waste of time by some.

Edited April 13, 2016 by MigBuster

[+streakeagle 871]

The early J models rushed into service had some reliability issues. The later post-Vietnam J models were much better, but were way behind what the AIM-G/H series had achieved. The jump from the AIM-9H to the AIM-9L was fairly small. Just a tweak to the seeker to give a chance at all-aspect. But if you look at the Israeli and Falklands data, AIM-9L series was still primarily fired from rear aspect, but achieved about 80% PK, not only well above the 15-25% experienced in Vietnam, but smoking the 35-40% achieved with AIM-7M in Desert Storm. As far as I can tell, AIM-9N/Ps were AIM-9Js altered to be roughly comparable to the AIM-9L/M without the all-aspect capability.

On my submarine, we had the sonar equivalent to a RWR, the AN/WLR-9. Its job was to automatically warn us with a variety of beeps to any active sonar that met its detection criteria. It would give you a direction, a signal strength, frequency, and pulse length. But under some circumstances, the false alarm rate was very high and it would largely be disregarded -- though we had to verbally acknowledge all torpedo detections as false alarms to the officer of the deck in control. But when a real sonar or torpedo was really going active, it gave us great information automatically. We never faced the saturation of active sonars in all directions that Olds faced in Vietnam. The system would have been utterly useless in the middle of a surface action group banging away at full power on their active sonars.

The photo with ECM pods on an intermediate pylon as well as a fwd Sparrow well is very rare. One almost never sees this combo, usually on the pylons or in the wells, but not one at each location. Wish I had a million photos of F-4s in those days. I was trying to get out of High School and over to Thailand to do just that, but could not graduate in time for the fun and games. Enclosed art from Mark Styling shows no fin tip color on the airplane at the time of the shootdown by the way. Warning placard on left intake splitter plate indicates Combat Tree self-destruct installed. 4-position AN/APS-107A RHAW antenna housings on nose just behind radome would not have been present at this time, nor would triangular reinforcing plate on stabs, nor black antenna on leading edge of wing...

 

Nice profile. My books never had a current photo of the Oyster flight F-4Ds. This crew chief's photos are fantastic and belong in my books. I have identified three of the four tail codes in that flight. I would also like to know the tail codes of the sister, Balter, flight, especially the two that completed the mission and flew up high as bait.

Once source confessed that 784 wasn't even assigned to them, but after scoring their kills, they used rank to have it the name blocks repainted/assigned to them.

I never trust profiles. Photos have limited usefulness unless you can be certain about the date/location... but still much better than profiles. In the absence of information, I always take what I can get though. In the words of my WEPS on SSN-687 (weapons officer), "bad data is better than no data".

Edited April 14, 2016 by streakeagle

[mppd 16]

Even tougher to figure out tailcodes and such when crews from the same unit would use aircraft from multiple squadrons in the same flight. Wasn't one of Ritchies mig kills in an E- model TDY from Homestead?

[MigBuster 2,887]

Even tougher to figure out tailcodes and such when crews from the same unit would use aircraft from multiple squadrons in the same flight. Wasn't one of Ritchies mig kills in an E- model TDY from Homestead?

 

2 kills listed in F-4E 67-0362 

[MigBuster 2,887]

The early J models rushed into service had some reliability issues. The later post-Vietnam J models were much better, but were way behind what the AIM-G/H series had achieved. The jump from the AIM-9H to the AIM-9L was fairly small. Just a tweak to the seeker to give a chance at all-aspect. But if you look at the Israeli and Falklands data, AIM-9L series was still primarily fired from rear aspect, but achieved about 80% PK, not only well above the 15-25% experienced in Vietnam, but smoking the 35-40% achieved with AIM-7M in Desert Storm. As far as I can tell, AIM-9N/Ps were AIM-9Js altered to be roughly comparable to the AIM-9L/M without the all-aspect capability.

 

 

H was supposed to be solid state.....not so sure on the N but the P was apparently a solid state version of the J. Iran seem to have used the P-1 so there might be something to go on with that. Israeli F-16s used the P-3 in the early 80s alongside the L and got a few kills. On the P-4 it looks like they just stuck the L seeker on it anyway.

[mppd 16]

^{Streak, I would be interested in what you have on Oyster Flight, serials and unit assignments if possible.}

Edited April 14, 2016 by mppd

[+streakeagle 871]

I need to consolidate my sources. But the Osprey book on USAF F-4 kills in 72-73 is agreeing with my other book that chronicles all MiG killers of the entire war. The profiles in the Osprey book got some things right, but still have mistakes. Interesting text on the loadouts: the #2/#4 planes apparently carried fewer missiles based on a statement from the #2 pilot in this historical incident.

 

Oyster 1: 3 x AIM-7, 2 x AIM-4

Oyster 2: 2 x AIM-7, 1 x AIM-4

 

Apparently all carried 3 drop tanks, which they dropped prior to engaging.

[+streakeagle 871]

Oyster flight on May 10, 1972 consisted of four F-4Ds:

 

Oyster 1, OY 65-0784 crewed by Maj. Robert Lodge and Capt. Roger Locher

Oyster 2, OY 66-8734 crewed by 1Lt. John Markle and Capt. Steven Eaves.

Oyster 3, OY 66-7463 crewed by Capt. Steve Ritchie and Capt. Chuck DeBellevue

Oyster 4, OY ? crewed by 1Lt. Tommy Feezel and Capt. Larry Pettit

 

Here are some profiles from the Osprey book, "USAF F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1972-73":

 

 

 

Having seen real photos of OY 65-0784 just two days prior to May 10, the first obvious error is the ecm pod in the front AIM-7 well. It should be an ALQ-101, not an ALQ-71. The 71 was under the left wing.

 

OY 65-0784 and OY 66-7463 both had combat tree, so they both should probably have the red warning label seen on the splitter plate of OC 66-0230 and OY 66-6463. This red square is about the self-destruct mechanism for the highly classified combat tree system.

 

While the profile doesn't show it, I have seen photos that indicate OY 66-7463 had "slimer" formation lights as depicted for OY 66-8734 and OY 65-0784.

 

Knowing that the loadout on OY 65-0784 is probably wrong in the profile, the other two should be equally inaccurate, but may reflect what the pilots recalled in past interviews. Of interest to me is that Oyster 1 and 2 show ALQ-71 pods in the forward AIM-7 well while Oyster 3 shows AIM-7s up front and an ALQ-101 pod on the wing pylon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+streakeagle 871]

Reading and re-reading my sources on this subject take me back in time. The names are so familiar. ACIG has an alternative description of what happened taking into account what the VPAF reported sorties and losses were for that day. The US perspective had a flight of 4 x MiG-21s supplemented by a flight of 4 x MiG-19s. The VPAF claimed 2 x MiG-21 + 4 x MiG-19. But Roger Locher's description of the MiG-21 that Bob Lodge died trying to kill is indicative of a Soviet flown MiG-21. No VPAF MiG-21s meet Locher's description. The VPAF description would fit the initial detection of and killing of two MiG-21s, but then Roger Locher identified an additional MiG-21 at point blank range and Steve Ritchie also thought he had shot down a MiG-21. It is possible that the three known kills were 1 x MiG-21 and 2 x MiG-19 with Roger Locher having seen the second MiG-21. But then what did Markle see attacking Lodge? 2 x MiG-19 or 4 x MiG-19? I think the ACIG later amended their description of this fight to include for the possibility that there really were 4 x MiG-21s involved despite the VPAF claims, because I don't remember them previously accepting the possibility that there really were 4 x MiG-21s and my latest re-reading of their post did include that possibility rather than outright refuting it as I remembered. The USSR records admit flying combat missions in Korea but have never admitted doing so in Vietnam. But first hand pilot accounts (such as Locher's) indicate that it may have occurred whether the USSR realized it or not.

 

One bonus in having the VPAF's account of that day is that there was one more kill that should be credited to that flight, and most probably Bod Lodge and Roger Locher: the MiG-19 that shot them down ended up running out of fuel, landing too fast, and flipping over on landing, killing the pilot. So the final tally for the day would be 4:1 in favor of the US. If Bob Lodge had heeded the "break" call from Oyster 2, it probably would have been 3:0. As smart and good as Maj Lodge was, he apparently had become obsessed with becoming the first USAF Vietnam ace. If he hadn't suffered from target fixation on that day, he probably would have been. He is a classic tragic hero. It still makes me sad to read about this mission. Especially hearing the recording of Locher describing the events.

 

I am sure the VPAF pilots were heroic, too. The Osprey books on the VPAF Mig-17/MiG-19 and VPAF MiG-21 units do a good job of showing the war from their perspective. But as a US citizen and veteran who grew up loving our fighter pilots, I can't quite feel the pride and sadness of their situation as much as I can for US pilots. The same goes for Nazi and Japanese pilots vs Allied pilots. I love and respect them all, but I can't help but root and cry more for the home team.

Edited April 15, 2016 by streakeagle

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Now you got me thinking about this again......

 

Locher described a MiG-21MF with a blue painted canopy frame.

 

Any one else read that?

[+streakeagle 871]

With blue numbers, which are USSR issue colors. Of course, humans aren't the best witnesses. Subject to errors. The USSR is steadfast that it did not fight in the air in Vietnam as it did in Korea. But what would make Locher see/recall these details other than actually having seen them up close? I would take his word unless better evidence such as photos/film contradicted him. But the VPAF records are fairly good, too. They certainly knew which aircraft/pilots didn't come home on any given day. It is difficult to accurately peel back the fog of war, especially when the whole incident was somewhat classified until recently due to the use of Combat Tree.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Of course.

 

I know Soviets, East Germans, and North Koreans actively participated in combat in Vietnam. They just don't admit it.

 

I have zero doubt that Soviet pilots participated in some degree.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

This is the guy!

 

 

 

[mppd 16]

Thanks to all for spending the time on this. It got me motivated to get back to my own F-4D 3D project again. All the birds assigned to PACAF would have had the tape lights by then. Some of the TDY TAC unit airplanes were still in the process of getting them (I think about half of the Holloman airplanes TDY to Takhli had them, but I only have very few photos of those), a few Seymour-Johnson and Homestead planes were still missing them also.

[+streakeagle 871]

I have been spending time on this well before there were PC flight sims. SPI had a board game named "Air War.

"https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1629/air-war-modern-tactical-air-combat

It was re-released by TSR while I was in high school about 1983, which was when I bought it. There were two scenarios in that game that were my all time favorite ones to play: two F-105s being bounced by MiG-17s (possibly recreating the first F-105 lost to MiGs) and "The Death of Major Lodge".

 

Later on, around 1987 or 1988, I bought a very big book, "Modern Fighting Aircraft Volume 4 F-4 Phantom".

http://www.amazon.com/F-4-Phantom-Modern-Fighting-Aircraft/dp/0668060689/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460837049&sr=1-20&keywords=F-4+Phantom

It had a detailed description of this same air battle, complete with a diagram summarizing all of the key events.

 

Over the years, I have built a decent library of books on F-4 Phantoms, the Vietnam air war, and air combat in general, which frequently mention this particular incident. Somewhere along the way, the narrative description changed as the existence, function, and employment of Combat Tree was declassified. Before, this incident was famous not for the death of Major Lodge, or being the source of one of Steve Ritchie's  5 kills, but because it was the sole textbook example from the entire Vietnam air war showing how great a weapon the AIM-7 Sparrow could be when employed Beyond Visual Range. The text would explain the unique circumstances of this mission that enabled Oyster flight to be certain that they were not firing on friendlies without getting a visual ID. Red Crown, airborne monitoring, and a lack of any allied aircraft in front of them. Now we no the truth: this was just one of many incidents where Combat Tree got an IFF response from MiGs confirming their identity as an enemy without a doubt and permitting AIM-7s to be fired well beyond visual range.

[ironroad 218]

Even tougher to figure out tailcodes and such when crews from the same unit would use aircraft from multiple squadrons in the same flight. Wasn't one of Ritchies mig kills in an E- model TDY from Homestead?

I have heard and read as such. Ritchie and DeBellevue got two of their kills together in an F-4E, all of "Chuck's" remaining kills were in a F-4D, two more with Ritchie and two more with John A. Madden Jr.

 

It also was not uncommon for USAF F-4s during the early to mid part of SEA to have different "tail codes" in the same squadron because there was no organized standard wing/base tailcode system for F-4s in country. I believe that system may have begun to get worked out by the early 70s and Linebacker days. Complete difference where all Navy/USMC birds had the tail code of their assigned air wings/group.

 

Also for a good chunk of the war (at least during part of Flaming Dart and Rolling Thunder) the air force did not want to openly identify that they were operating from bases in Thailand, hence why some of the tail codes and even serial numbers may be wonky in photos from that period.

Edited April 17, 2016 by ironroad

[+streakeagle 871]

Some information on Balter flight, the top cover for Oyster flight:

 

- Oyster Flight, 4 F-4D (with Combat Tree) from 555th TFS/432nd TRW, lead by Maj. Robert Locher

 

- Balter Flight, 4 F-4D (with Combat Tree) from 13th TFS/432nd TRW, lead by ?

 

A crew member photo and name is in the book, "One Day in a Long War": Capt Bill Ridge, presumably one of the two pilots that didn't turn back.

 

I can't find any more information on Balter flight of May 10. The name doesn't get any hits on the internet, no matter what qualifiers I use to filter the search.

Edited April 20, 2016 by streakeagle

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Hey mppd! your efforts not in vain! I fly your of SF1 mods in SF2 now!

 

Before the mission editor came out...... Me and Dave where trying to replicate the MiG kills.... With right skins and everything. After Mission Editor came out we kinda gave up!

 

Guys should really dig into the SF1 downloads and find them. They are great!

We made three really good Navy missions.

 

Dirty Finger Nails.

 

Coffee and Doughnuts.

 

Silver Kings go to Kep.

 

Two off the three based on the Dogfights Series from History Channel.

Edited April 30, 2016 by CrazyhorseB34

[+streakeagle 871]

It was kind of painful transitioning from SFP1 to SF2. A lot of great work was lost due to changes or ignored and forgotten.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

YEP!

 

I got everything from those days backed up.