No chaff and flares on F-8 during Vietnam?

[Chakat_Avocado]

After doing long research and reading up on the flight documentation of the F-8 Crusader, I have found that there is support for chaff and flares on the aircraft though in game, only 60 chaff is available unless editing the data file. I went and gave the F-8's 30 chaff and flares as the manual says in real life as far as the mod 3 F-8E to F-8J and H around 1966 to the latest. I would hope eventually someone can update the countermeasure options in a later update to the F-8 on one of the third party mods like the mirage pack, french F-8 and such. Just saying.

[Wrench]

Quote

unless editing the data file

that's kinda how its done. don't expect anything from 3W. it's all on us

[macelena]

I think when it comes to Vietnam, the all-Chaff loadout makes sense. While i edited both AIM-9B and R-3Ss to be 180º rear aspect, it seems SAMs are still much more of a concern.

[+streakeagle]

MiG encounters were relatively rare. The Vietnamese didn't have many and on most days used them very sparingly. The Navy mainly faced MiG-17s which had no IRMs. SA-2s were fired on a daily basis. The Navy needed chaff far more than they needed flares. So, you shouldn't be looking for what the aircraft was capable of carrying, but instead looking for documentation of what they actually carried.

For example, the F-4 could in theory carry 4 x AIM-9 and 4 x AIM-7. But the USAF and USN used different loadouts based on their own experience and judgement. The USAF had crappy AIM-9s and favored carrying AIM-7s, but the USAF also liked to put an ecm pod in one of the forward AIM-7 wells. The USAF also liked to carry the AIM-4D instead of the AIM-9. So even on May 10, 1972, during the biggest day of air-to-air combat during the entire war, Major Lodge's Oyster flight of F-4Ds was carrying 1 x AIM-4D on each wing pylon, either 2 or 3 AIM-7 + ECM pod. The USN had great AIM-9s and almost always carried 4xAIM-9. But since the F-4 couldn't fire the forward AIM-7s without dropping the centerline tank and the Navy had horrible results with the AIM-7, they usually only carried 2xAIM-7 in the rear wells. Unlike the USAF, Navy F-4s could carry 2xAIM-9 and bombs under each wing plyon, so it was quite common for USN CAP/Escort F-4s to carry some bombs as well as missiles to provide some SEAD for the attack aircraft. Whereas in the game, carrying 4xAIM-9 and 4xAIM-7 is typical and generally the most effective loadout.

Edited July 11, 2021 by streakeagle

[macelena]

1 hour ago, streakeagle said:

The USAF also liked to carry the AIM-4D instead of the AIM-9. So even on May 10, 1972, during the biggest day of air-to-air combat during the entire war, Major Lodge's Oyster flight of F-4Ds was carrying 1 x AIM-4D on each wing pylon, either 2 or 3 AIM-7 + ECM pod.

I didn't know AIM-4s were carried that late, that would be certainly a bump in difficulty ingame when AIM-9Js become available.

[+streakeagle]

Historically, USAF AIM-9Es and AIM-9Js performed the same or worse than AIM-9Bs, while the USN very hastily deployed AIM-9Ds with excellent results (around 40-60%) and the AIM-9G and AIM-9H had results comparable to the AIM-9L (around 80%). Late AIM-9Js as deployed on F-15s supposedly solved the early AIM-9J problems, but the AIM-9L, derived from the AIM-9G/H series was far superior, so the USAF finally gave up and switched to the USN derived variants that were comparable in range and speed, more maneuverable, all-aspect, and more reliable. The AIM-4D had dismal performance in Vietnam, worse than the AIM-9B. But the USAF really insisted on using them rather than the USN developed AIM-9. Politics and pride don't mix well with making good decisions that effect combat effectiveness.

[+streakeagle]

I may be able to dig up some F-8 operational info. I don't know if my sources go into that level of detail.

But here is where I discussed Oyster flight's 1972 May loadouts with 2xAIM-4D and an ecm pod in the forward AIM-7 well. Note: there is also an ecm pod under one of the AIM-4Ds.

Oyster Flight Loadout on May 10, 1972 - The Pub - CombatACE

[macelena]

One would have thought since they already had "borrowed" the Phantom from the Navy, the Air Force brass or whoever made the call shouldn't have been so concerned about using the same model of Sidewinder and just fund the same program.

I think Maj. Bruce Gordon, former F-102/106/100 pilot and senior Youtuber, commented that AIM-4s themselves were great, but weren't properly integrated in Phantoms. I don't know what to make of it, for what I'm concerned, if the USN already had something that worked well why bother trying in the middle of a war.

I think an F-102 managed to shoot several AIM-4s without against MiG-21s that had just bounced his wingman, but from what i read they had to be already far and getting away, and of course it seems too little of a sample to find out.

[+streakeagle]

Project Shoehorn was the US Navy program to retrofit its Vietnam aircraft with RWR/ECM including the ALE series chaff/flare dispensers. The F-8 received the ALE-29 series with a pair of 15-round boxes. It was designed for dropping chaff and you can see that in the control panel switch functions. But per the F-8 manual, it could carry flares, too. But there was no way to choose flare or chaff, just the ability to select one or both pods and determine how many and how fast to deploy countermeasures. So, if flares were available and loaded, it would have been possible to load one with flares and one with chaff, then use the selector to drop the one you wanted or both. The focus was on defeating SA-2s, but later in the war, shoulder fired SA-7s became a threat, so it is possible that flares may have been carried.

AIM-4 limititations:

You have to turn on cooling in anticipation of combat, which takes a while.

Once you turn on cooling, it has a time limit and runs out of cooling.

You have to hold the firing solution for several seconds before the missile launches.

Small warhead with no proximity fuse: the missile must score a direct kinetic hit and even then may not do significant damage.

It was not a dogfight weapon at all (like the early AIM-7 and AIM-9B). Against maneuvering MiGs, you could never meet all of the firing constraints, and even if you did, it probably missed. The USAF insisted on switching to the AIM-4 and consequently saw its ability to score kills against VPAF MiGs dramatically reduced until they switched back to AIM-9s. The AIM-9B was far easier to use and far more reliable even though it also had similar launch g and minimum range limits. The AIM-9D was available almost immediately at the start of the Vietnam War and was far superior to the AIM-9B and AIM-4D as reflected by all the kills the Navy scored with it. Robin Olds immediately recognized the mistake of switching to the AIM-4 and ordered his mechanics to create an adapter to permit using the AIM-9B. The USAF leadership (dominated by the Curtis LeMay nuclear war/strategic bomber crowd) was horrible for the duration of the war constantly making bad strategic and tactical decisions that cost many planes and pilots. It was only after the war that the USAF admitted its training and tactics were horrible and that the Navy's AIM-9 was the future instead of continuing development of its AIM-9E/J series. The AIM-4 went away with the Century series interceptors, with the AIM-54 being the only derivative to remain in service in any capacity with US forces. The Iranians praised the AIM-54 can claimed many kills. In US Navy service, it had a history of poor reliability during test and training shots and the few times it was fired in combat, it failed.

[MigBuster]

13 hours ago, macelena said:

One would have thought since they already had "borrowed" the Phantom from the Navy, the Air Force brass or whoever made the call shouldn't have been so concerned about using the same model of Sidewinder and just fund the same program.

I think Maj. Bruce Gordon, former F-102/106/100 pilot and senior Youtuber, commented that AIM-4s themselves were great, but weren't properly integrated in Phantoms. I don't know what to make of it, for what I'm concerned, if the USN already had something that worked well why bother trying in the middle of a war.

I think an F-102 managed to shoot several AIM-4s without against MiG-21s that had just bounced his wingman, but from what i read they had to be already far and getting away, and of course it seems too little of a sample to find out.

Politics and pettiness have always been part of aircraft and weapon procurement and that wont change....the guys in the field can make the recommendations but if those who hold the budget have other ideas then...........

The F-4 setup of AIM-4 was clearly unusable in most typical SEA engagements however F-102A was still set up as a pure interceptor so even they needed to get the missile ready before use. In the one engagement (Feb 68) the guy that did not get shot down apparently fired 3 x AIM-4Ds and all missed.............sounds like it was the start of the engagement and before his wingman was hit......but anyway.

 

 

[macelena]

18 hours ago, MigBuster said:

The F-4 setup of AIM-4 was clearly unusable in most typical SEA engagements however F-102A was still set up as a pure interceptor so even they needed to get the missile ready before use. In the one engagement (Feb 68) the guy that did not get shot down apparently fired 3 x AIM-4Ds and all missed.............sounds like it was the start of the engagement and before his wingman was hit......but anyway.

 

 

I thought he shot after the other F-102 exploded, while the MiGs were pulling out. If it was the way you say, it would be even more of a failure.  

[Flamesky]

Damn it ! The F-8 Crusader  “The Last of the Gunfighters” one of the most beautiful Warbirds in American Aviation History.  The F-8 Crusader Once Scared a Vietnamese MiG Pilot Into Ejecting Before a Dogfight. The image shows: RF-8G Crusader of VFP-63 is launched from USS Coral Sea (CVA-43), in 1973. The RF-8G is the reconnaissance version of the famous F-8 “Crusader,” the last U.S. Navy jet fighter who’s primary armament consisted of cannons rather than missiles. With its powerful afterburning J-57 engine, the F-8 is the first supersonic Navy fighter. On July 16, 1957, then Major John Glenn, USMC, who later became the first man to orbit the Earth, completed the first supersonic transcontinental flight averaging 732.5 mph flying an earlier model, the RF-8A. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963, the RF-8A, provided vital photographs regarding Soviet missile emplacements. The aircraft on display is 1 of 73 RF-8G models upgraded in 1965

Edited July 13, 2021 by Flamesky

[macelena]

Well, it was hard, but at least I never got tracked with so much ECM power

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by macelena

[MigBuster]

4 hours ago, macelena said:

I thought he shot after the other F-102 exploded, while the MiGs were pulling out. If it was the way you say, it would be even more of a failure.  

Info is from F-102 Delta Dagger Units (p75 Osprey 2020)

[macelena]

6 minutes ago, MigBuster said:

Info is from F-102 Delta Dagger Units (p75 Osprey 2020)

I need to get a haul of those, just went to self-isolation.

[Chakat_Avocado]

Quite frankly, during Vietnam, the later F-8E, J and H, while capable of having flares simply did not need them during the early part of the war due to radar guided sams. However, later on the war and after, eventually they will need them as air threats along with ground based ones evolve will have better aam and sams. The Soviet R-60 while agile and lethal loves to eat flares if done properly.

[+Gepard]

Funny. The R-60 was not used in Vietnam War. They had only R-3S, which was a perfect AIM-9B copy.

[KJakker]

On 7/11/2021 at 9:27 PM, macelena said:

I think Maj. Bruce Gordon, former F-102/106/100 pilot and senior Youtuber, commented that AIM-4s themselves were great, but weren't properly integrated in Phantoms. I don't know what to make of it, for what I'm concerned, if the USN already had something that worked well why bother trying in the middle of a war.

This one illustrates a supersonic intercept with an AIM-4.

This is the one withe the comment on the F-4 and the AIM-4 missile.

 

[Wrench]

nice 106 painting

[macelena]

4 hours ago, Wrench said:

nice 106 painting

It sure helps that the 106 is so nice to begin with. I mean, it would be criminal to botch a portrait of Scarlett Johansson. 

[Chakat_Avocado]

On 7/15/2021 at 11:51 AM, Gepard said:

Funny. The R-60 was not used in Vietnam War. They had only R-3S, which was a perfect AIM-9B copy.

The thing that I was thinking of is flying the F-8 after the Vietnam era and trying my skill with my Crusader on more modern jets. Some of the times I succeed and the latter not so much. Pretty much a double negative situation which requires wits and skills to outfight anyone and anything.