A-1 Skyraider vs A-26

[drgondog]

Along with the "fighter mafia".

True Dat. I was at the 67 (IIRC) American Fighter Aces Reunion and Robin was holding court amongst many friendlies. With him from Viet Nam was LtCol Bob Earthquake McGoon Titus with three Mig kills, and USN Captain Billy Kidd who flew F-8s and was already 'suitably armed' with internal 20mm.

There were a lot of converging forces including John Boyd and the Pentagon 'Fighter Mafia' including General Gordy Graham.

I had several sources with live experience that said the failure rate for the Aim 7 and Sparrow were 95+%

 

[BiffF15]

One of my simulator instructors at F-15 RTU (circa 1991-1992) was a Vietnam F-4 Driver who had a gun pod kill face shot. Totally intense, but good guy. Gives credibility to the saying, "Never let a bandit cross your nose for free".

Cheers,
Biff

 

[swampyankee]

The USN and USAF, along with VVO-Strany and the RN and RAF were all eschewing guns on fighter aircraft, especially those primarily tasked with air defense, at about that time: it was a fashion, something like plaid suits.

As an aside, and something which I do not have good sources for, I've read that F4 pilots did not get much training in fighter-fighter combat before the USN started the Top Gun program, and many of the USAF fighter pilots had a similar gap in training, and that, at least in the USN, only the Crusader pilots received regular training in fighter-fighter combat. As I said, I don't have good sources for this; if anybody does, it would be great if they would post them.

 

[tyrodtom]

The USN and USAF, along with VVO-Strany and the RN and RAF were all eschewing guns on fighter aircraft, especially those primarily tasked with air defense, at about that time: it was a fashion, something like plaid suits.


Tha

The USN and USAF, along with VVO-Strany and the RN and RAF were all eschewing guns on fighter aircraft, especially those primarily tasked with air defense, at about that time: it was a fashion, something like plaid suits.

While that may be true, how many other countries brought out fighters, in the F-4's era, that had no guns at all ?

 

[swampyankee]

While that may be true, how many other countries brought out fighters, in the F-4's era, that had no guns at all ?

How many other countries could develop them?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Sorry, this is a bungled edit. Can't get the system to delete it.
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The USN and USAF, along with VVO-Strany and the RN and RAF were all eschewing guns on fighter aircraft, especially those primarily tasked with air defense, at about that time: it was a fashion, something like plaid suits.

As an aside, and something which I do not have good sources for, I've read that F4 pilots did not get much training in fighter-fighter combat before the USN started the Top Gun program, and many of the USAF fighter pilots had a similar gap in training, and that, at least in the USN, only the Crusader pilots received regular training in fighter-fighter combat. As I said, I don't have good sources for this; if anybody does, it would be great if they would post them.

I worked with a Navy F-4 ACM training squadron shortly after Top Gun was established, and the instructors had all had their initial training in the pre-Top Gun era. Apparently the Navy in those days envisioned the F-4 as a long range fleet defense interceptor and nuclear weapons delivery system. Their training in air-to-air focused on long range detection and interception of Badger/Blinder/Beauty class threats with BVR missile kills. Mixing it up with single seat fighters in visual combat was just not part of the scenario. That's what the F-8 was for. ACM training was further limited by a safety-driven prohibition against dissimilar types dogfighting of any kind. The AIM-7 Sparrow spent its entire life "on the verge of" and "one tweak away from" reliable performance. Never quite got there. Kinda like the torpedo performance issues of WWII, the R&D folks never quite believed what the combat folks were telling them.
When McNamara stuffed the Navy-developed F-4 down the Air Force's gagging throat, the AF begged for at least an internal Vulcan like their Century Series had, but the answer was "WYSIWYG". The F-4C was an F-4B with a cheaper radar, a full set of flight controls in back, and softer struts. Mac couldn't even be talked into eliminating the tailhook!
Air combat doctrine of the day was predicated on the concept of "sterile airspace" where all bogies are bandits, where IFF always works, and friendly fire losses are not an issue. It took a while (years!) for the realities of Vietnam to set in.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[swampyankee]

I worked with a Navy F-4 ACM training squadron shortly after Top Gun was established, and the instructors had all had their initial training in the pre-Top Gun era. Apparently the Navy in those days envisioned the F-4 as a long range fleet defense interceptor and nuclear weapons delivery system. Their training in air-to-air focused on long range detection and interception of Badger/Blinder/Beauty class threats with BVR missile kills. Mixing it up with single seat fighters in visual combat was just not part of the scenario. That's what the F-8 was for. ACM training was further limited by a safety-driven prohibition against dissimilar types dogfighting of any kind. The AIM-7 Sparrow spent its entire life "on the verge of" and "one tweak away from" reliable performance. Never quite got there. Kinda like the torpedo performance issues of WWII, the R&D folks never quite believed what the combat folks were telling them.
When McNamara stuffed the Navy-developed F-4 down the Air Force's gagging throat, the AF begged for at least an internal Vulcan like their Century Series had, but the answer was "WYSIWYG". The F-4C was an F-4B with a cheaper radar, a full set of flight controls in back, and softer struts. Mac couldn't even be talked into eliminating the tailhook!
Air combat doctrine of the day was predicated on the concept of "sterile airspace" where all bogies are bandits, where IFF always works, and friendly fire losses are not an issue. It took a while (years!) for the realities of Vietnam to set in.
Cheers,
Wes

While it is fun to blame everything on McNamara, what did the USAF have for air combat in that era? One would also like to ask what, regardless of how good, would the AF take from the navy without gagging except budget? Pretty much nothing. Air Force and Navy purchasing decisions from the Eisenhower era were not McNamara's fault, like no guns. The TFX mess was less because of jointness than trying to stuff two wildly different missions into one airframe.

The problems in Vietnam had a lot of sources, including people whose working clothes include stars and eagles on epaulettes, not just grey three piece suits.

Sorry for the choppy writing. I'm blaming my tablet.

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

(addendum, on a real computer)

There were, and are, a lot of political "issues" between the USAF and USN; I suspect that these have been more problematic at the higher levels of command than in the field and I suspect that they are now much less severe than they were in the 1960s. I would conclude, then that a lot of the AF's gagging at having to accept the F4H, initially as the F-110, was more due to the necessity of accepting an aircraft developed for the USN than due to problems with the aircraft. Of course, one very real issue at the time was that the USAF needed an aircraft that was better at air-air than what they had in their inventory: the F-104 was designed as a fighter, but it's air combat success was, at best, mediocre (F-104A/B in Combat with Pakistan AF) and the USAF never seemed to be enthusiastic with the type. The F-106 was, from what I've read, quite good in air combat, but it had no gun and the Falcon missile made the Sparrow and Sidewinder seem paragons of success. The F-105 was, in essence, a bomber. The F-100 was suffering from irremedial fatigue issues. The time frame was too short to get the USAF a brand-dandy new airplane uncontaminated by navy blue paint.

As an aside, quite a lot of the R&D money spent on the F-15 was so they could get the same electronic performance as in the Phantom without a back-seater.

 

[Zipper730]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

Is 50 pounds of stick force the maximum for roll? It seems a decent amount but I'm just curious

 

[BiffF15]

I worked with a Navy F-4 ACM training squadron shortly after Top Gun was established, and the instructors had all had their initial training in the pre-Top Gun era. Apparently the Navy in those days envisioned the F-4 as a long range fleet defense interceptor and nuclear weapons delivery system. Their training in air-to-air focused on long range detection and interception of Badger/Blinder/Beauty class threats with BVR missile kills. Mixing it up with single seat fighters in visual combat was just not part of the scenario. That's what the F-8 was for. ACM training was further limited by a safety-driven prohibition against dissimilar types dogfighting of any kind. The AIM-7 Sparrow spent its entire life "on the verge of" and "one tweak away from" reliable performance. Never quite got there. Kinda like the torpedo performance issues of WWII, the R&D folks never quite believed what the combat folks were telling them.
When McNamara stuffed the Navy-developed F-4 down the Air Force's gagging throat, the AF begged for at least an internal Vulcan like their Century Series had, but the answer was "WYSIWYG". The F-4C was an F-4B with a cheaper radar, a full set of flight controls in back, and softer struts. Mac couldn't even be talked into eliminating the tailhook!
Air combat doctrine of the day was predicated on the concept of "sterile airspace" where all bogies are bandits, where IFF always works, and friendly fire losses are not an issue. It took a while (years!) for the realities of Vietnam to set in.
Cheers,
Wes

Wes,

The AIM-7 did grow into a great missile. I liked it for it's size, wingspan, and warhead. In a turning fight, if you launched inside parameters, it worked well. Even if it didn't explode (which didn't happen as far as I know), I can't imagine what getting hit by a 500lb supersonic missile would do to a plane... The AIM-7 is gone these days, but remembered fondly. I shot a total of 7 of them and it was remarkably reliable.

The hook remains on USAF jets, and MacDonald Douglas made a strong, non-skipping one. The F-4 had a high success / engagement rate, as does the Eagle. Our small USAF brethren have no where near the faith in theirs as we do in ours, for good reason.

The training shortfall that existed prior to Vietnam was thankfully cleared up. I flew with quite a few guys who would talk about it. Todays training has almost no limits, and is sculpted to keep you successful and alive in combat. I started doing DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) in F-15 initial training and it was not treated as something "unique". I have fought F-15's (A-E models, Saudis), F-16's (US, Asian & European), Mirage 2000's, Tornado's, F-4's (US & German), F-5's, F-18's (Top Gun, USMC & Canadian), AV-8's, F-14's, Mig-29's, and have tapped A-10s, B-1's, B-52's (who can put out enough chaff to FOD our your motors), P-3's, and C-130s, plus Hind & Apaches plus some I've probably forgot.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[tomo pauk]

...
I have fought F-15's (A-E models, Saudis), F-16's (US, Asian & European), Mirage 2000's, Tornado's, F-4's (US & German), F-5's, F-18's (Top Gun, USMC & Canadian), AV-8's, F-14's, Mig-29's, and have tapped A-10s, B-1's, B-52's (who can put out enough chaff to FOD our your motors), P-3's, and C-130s, plus Hind & Apaches plus some I've probably forgot.

Biff - would it be the violation of OPSEC if you post here what fighters, and/or people flying them, you consider the toughest of the bunch?

 

[BiffF15]

Tomo,

I will break it down into two types, 4 v 4 or greater and 1 v 1.

4 v 4+ the Europeans (Dutch in particular) did well, but they trained to it more frequently than their US counterparts. The late model F-16 (US) guys also did fairly well as they had a very good radar, and the USMC F-18 guys were good also.

USN F-18 when operating in boat mentality needed some work. F-14s were probably the ones who needed the most help.

1 v 1 The GE powered F-16s are phenomenal. They could make some major errors and recover due to thrust alone. F-18s are a good fight. Mig-29s are also a handful but very short legged. I did a 1 v 1 with a Mig in which from take off to him calling Bingo was 12 minutes. No legs.

Mirages never came to the merge, tactics were unrealistic. I hear it's a capable plane.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Robert Porter]

Have a friend that flew the F4 in a Wild Weasel role for the USAF, if you ask me regardless of the airframe that role takes guts.

 

[Robert Porter]

That's him and the family!

 

[XBe02Drvr]

As of '62/'63, USAF had numerous interceptor types, one nuclear bomber masquerading as a fighter, and one unsatisfactory day fighter that was really in concept a point-defense interceptor. It was their attempt to hold design competition to replace the aging Hun that set off McNamara. Their vision of a general purpose fighter was definitely NOT the F-4! The Phantom was too big, too heavy, too thirsty, all to lug around a massive radar set way more capable than needed for the USAF GCI-dominated environment, and a useless Guy In Back to run it. Plus, as a general purpose fighter, it ought to have integral cannons for tactical missions. (They LOVED the Vulcan). Mac, in his obsession with multi-role versatility, insisted in his ground pounder ignorance that pod guns would do the trick. And he held the purse strings. I was in high school in those days and following all these developments with avid curiosity. The local library had a subscription to Aviation Week and I had Air Progress and was in hog heaven! I figured out the F-104 was a sorry excuse long before the Luftwaffe lost all those pilots. I also had developed a healthy skepticism of the electronic BVR "sterile airspace" mindset long before the USAF and USN started shooting each other down over Vietnam.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[tyrodtom]

I know the possibility was there.
But how many friendly fire aircraft shoot downs did we have during the Vietnam era ?
I'm asking air to air, not ground fire mistakes.

 

[Robert Porter]

I could not find any air to air instances of friendly fire during the Vietnam war era. I did see where a Cessna Spotter plane was accidentally shot down by flying through an artillery barrage. This list from Wikipedia is fairly complete and well cited. List of friendly fire incidents - Wikipedia

 

[Robert Porter]

Another list, also no air to air. US Casualties from Friendly Fire Incidents in Vietnam - Air Incidents

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I was told (anecdotally) there were several cases early on of A-4s and F-100s being shot down over the North by friendly fire. In any case, ROEs were quickly changed to require VIDs before weapons release. IAC, I wouldn't think it too farfetched to suspect the records of being "corrected" to protect the "innocent".
Cheers,
Wes

 

[tyrodtom]

With the dismal record the missiles had early on, what the chance of the few times they worked, they brought down one of our own aircraft ?
After 1965, other than Misty Fac, and Wild Weasels, the F-100 wasn't used over North Vietnam.

There's not one recorded incident of a F-100 being brought down by another aircraft during Vietnam, friendly or enemy.

In my 8 years in the USAF and Army, during the Vietnam era, I heard a lot of anecdotal tales, I didn't believe them all. I got so if I didn't see it myself, i'd file it away as only a possibility.