A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45

MIflyer said:

In Vietnam one of the problems the Migs had was that the US aircraft were all faster than they were at the lower altitudes. A Mig-21 could not catch our fighters down low. I recall reading that our F-105's would sometimes go into attack a target with a Mig-21 flying formation. The Mig could not get into position to fire because if he backed off on the throttles for a second or did a maneuver to get behind the 105's they would leave him.

I also recall one Indian pilot saying that while the Mig-21 was theoretically a Mach 2 airplane every time he got much past Mach 1 the low level fuel light came on. But our Red Eagles unit flying Soviet equipment at Tonopah said that it was very impressive how you could get a Mig-21 up just past Mach 1 and then back off on the throttles and it would stay supersonic for quite a while.

And the other reason the Mig engines had short service lives was that it fit their philosophy. You had to keep people working in a Communist county, where the Govt owned everything, so you built stuff designed not to last very long. You had to keep the factories going and you did not expect equipment to last very long in combat anyway. They did not build Migs with lots of access panels because they would be sent back to be rebuilt, not fixed in the field. Of course, one bullet in the wrong place and the airplane was as good as destroyed.

At 10,000 ft air pressure is 10.1 PSI. At 20,000 ft air pressure is 6.76 PSI. I can tell you from personal experience that it makes a hell of a lot of difference if you are trying to breathe!

Click to expand...

Mlflyer,

I don't think much could keep up with an F105. I've heard of 900+ KIAS and that a small bit of damage could be catastrophic at those speeds. I've seen 740KIAS at about 6000' but that was after ramping down but with a high drag tank on. However a few guys got kills with them!

Cheers,
Biff

BiffF15 said:

I don't think much could keep up with an F105.

Click to expand...

The Thud was designed from the getgo to haul a nuke across the Iron Curtain into eastern Europe in the weeds at speeds to defy interception. A hi-lo-hi profile with a high drag external load was a little outside its design parameters, yet it still did a hell of a job. A second engine would have saved a lot of them in Vietnam. The only other US planes (that I know of) that had that kind of performance goals were the A3J (RA5C) and the long forgotten Martin Seamaster.
Vigilantes, despite their greater size and weight on the same engines, were notorious for outrunning their Phantom escorts at any given fuel flow setting. And they had a lot more internal capacity.
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr said:

The Thud was designed from the getgo to haul a nuke across the Iron Curtain into eastern Europe in the weeds at speeds to defy interception. A hi-lo-hi profile with a high drag external load was a little outside its design parameters, yet it still did a hell of a job. A second engine would have saved a lot of them in Vietnam. The only other US planes (that I know of) that had that kind of performance goals were the A3J (RA5C) and the long forgotten Martin Seamaster.
Vigilantes, despite their greater size and weight on the same engines, were notorious for outrunning their Phantom escorts at any given fuel flow setting. And they had a lot more internal capacity.
Cheers,
Wes

Click to expand...

Only Vigilante I've been near is sitting by the gate at Boca Chica!

That problem (speeds on ingress / egress) across time and airframes will probably always exist. Too much staggering of aircraft introductions to be otherwise. Saw it with the F4, A6, EA6, Harrier, early Vipers, etc.

Cheers,
Biff

BiffF15 said:

Only Vigilante I've been near is sitting by the gate at Boca Chica!

That problem (speeds on ingress / egress) across time and airframes will probably always exist. Too much staggering of aircraft introductions to be otherwise. Saw it with the F4, A6, EA6, Harrier, early Vipers, etc.

Cheers,
Biff

Click to expand...

Boca Chica was the final sunset base for the nomadic Vigilante community.
The F4H and A3J were contemporaries, using the same -# J79s, but designed for radically different missions.
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr said:

Vigilantes, despite their greater size and weight

Click to expand...

You've seen photos of VN era carriers with RA5s in the flight deck mix; they're effing humongous.
Now picture yourself in that cockpit, 16 feet forward of the nosegear, being directed into a tightpack deck edge parking spot at night. When the deck ape with the wands brings your nosewheel two feet from the edge and signals a turn (from way behind your shoulder), you're 8 feet out beyond the catwalk and there's nothing between you and the ocean below but 100 feet of spray filled blackness. And just to give you that warm cozy feeling, your officially zero-zero seat has a track record of not always achieving that performance.
Cheers,
Wes

Picture time

Milosh said:

Picture time
View attachment 526721

Click to expand...

Willy Fudd looks rather diminutive between those two Viges, wouldn't you say? "Stoof with a roof" or "Miniwacs" for short.
Cheers,
Wes

Kevin J said:

I though the US tried the Dagger in Vietnam and unlike the Crusader was an utter disaster.

Click to expand...

I guess you need to define "utter disaster", from my limited reading only one Dagger was lost air to air, a couple to ground fire and the rest to accidents, total=15 (although wiki sources 14). Remember it was an all weather radar guided and equipped interceptor that was pressed into service as a ground attack machine.

The F-102 In Vietnam

Peter Gunn said:

I guess you need to define "utter disaster", from my limited reading only one Dagger was lost air to air, a couple to ground fire and the rest to accidents, total=15 (although wiki sources 14). Remember it was an all weather radar guided and equipped interceptor that was pressed into service as a ground attack machine.

The F-102 In Vietnam

Click to expand...

I agree. Totally unsuitable to the task assigned to it.

The odd thing about the F-102 in Vietnam is that they used it for RESCAP quite a lot. They were on hot pad alert to intercept any inbound hostiles and thanks to their internally stored weapons did not have to stop to pull the arming pins at the end of the runway; they could get off the ground faster than anyone else. Once over the downed pilot there was not much they could do, their weapons being unsuitable for air to ground, but they used them to scare off the VC anyway..

When I mentioned the MiG 21 operational history I wasn't just referring to direct conflict between the US and Communist Bloc as in Vietnam, but also in various other conflicts around the world.

As we have discussed in the context of WW2, one of the traits of a successful fighter is its adaptability for various roles and multiple generations of upgrades and reinvention.

The MiG 21 had flaws but was ultimately very successful. The US equivalent in this sense is probably the (also flawed but ultimately highly succesful), versatile and adaptable F-4 Phantom. Two very different aircraft but both highly capable in their own way. Another perhaps /arguably equivalent fighter was the French Mirage III.

I think limited fuel / flight endurance was an issue with most early supersonic jet fighters. I would say all three of the ones I mentioned to various degrees. But they were effective in spite of that rather severe limitation.

The Century series by contrast didn't have a stellar record. F 104s were used in Vietnam in 1965-67, to little effect - losing about a dozen including one to a MiG 19. (Pakistani) F 104s engaged (Indian) MiG 21s in 1965 and came out on the short end, losing about a half dozen for no victories.

F 102s served in Vietnam, losing 14 mostly to accidents and ground fire, but including 1 to a MiG 21. No confirmed victories as far as I know.

F 101 was used in Vietnam as a recon plane in the early to mid 60's, losing 33 including 1 to a MiG 21.

F 105 served as a successful fighter bomber in Vietnam but took fairly heavy losses. 27 air to air victories were claimed (all against MiG 17s) for 17 lost to fighters. Ultimately they had to be escorted by F4s.

The idea that the Century series were at best 'marginally successful' is just my opinion, I don't claim it to be better or worse than anyone else's.

My perception of the US having some problems with military procurement is NOT based on "preconceptions" and I don't aporeciate that suggestion. I'm not some superficial media hype victim, I am a grown ass man and as well read as anyone else here. My perception is based on my own service in the US armed forces, that of several of my friends, and about 35 years of research on aviation, albeit mostly just for fun.

Incidents like the Lockheed bribery scandal with the F 104 (among many others) speak for themselves.

Please forgive any typos as I'm writing on a phone

I always thought that vigilante was a beautiful looking airplane and looked ahead of its time it's too bad they didn't do more with it

Schweik said:

I always thought that vigilante was a beautiful looking airplane and looked ahead of its time it's too bad they didn't do more with it

Click to expand...

Well, once its unique and unconventional ordnance delivery system proved to be a dud, there wasn't much they could do with it except recon. It was built to go fast and far down in the weeds as a nuke striker, was sleek, fast, and heavy, but agile it was not. Pilots referred to its jinking style as "majestic". Optimised for speed, its low speed handling left a lot to be desired, it was a bear getting on and off the boat, and quickly acquired the sobriquet "Ensign eater". It strained the catapults and arresting gear, as well as the patience of the deck apes. It came aboard 10 knots faster and 20,000 pounds heavier than a Phantom, its wingspan was only 12 feet narrower than the landing zone, and it gave LSOs the willies.
Beauty is as beauty does.
Cheers,
Wes

I have to admit that given the choice between the Mig 21 and the F104 then I would take the Mig 21. Neither had a range to boast about and are normally seen with drop tanks and the normal payload 2 x AAM and a gun is also shared, but the Mig 21 is easier to fly and maintain as well as being widely described as a pilots aircraft, agile and responsive which with the best will in the world, couldn't be used to describe the F104.
The US fighter that hasn't been really mentioned as being available to combat the Mig in this timeframe is the F8 Crusader, an often overlooked gem which had a number of advantages over nearly all the early supersonic fighters of the time. A land based version without the extra weight needed to meet the needs of carrier operation, would have been a real performer, but remains one of those many 'what if's' in the history of aviation

My understanding is that the F8 kind of held the line for a while they were getting Top Gun running and making some changes to the F4. I find it a rather ugly beast but it seems to have done a good job.

Schweik said:

The MiG 21 had flaws but was ultimately very successful. The US equivalent in this sense is probably the (also flawed but ultimately highly succesful), versatile and adaptable F-4 Phantom. Two very different aircraft but both highly capable in their own way. Another perhaps /arguably equivalent fighter was the French Mirage III.

Click to expand...

The ultimately successful often seems to include several generations of aircraft. More later.

Schweik said:

I think limited fuel / flight endurance was an issue with most early supersonic jet fighters. I would say all three of the ones I mentioned to various degrees. But they were effective in spite of that rather severe limitation.

Click to expand...

Early Mig-21s had rather sever fuel limitations. They couldn't even use all the internal fuel without the CG going out of w
whack.

Schweik said:

The Century series by contrast didn't have a stellar record. F 104s were used in Vietnam in 1965-67, to little effect - losing about a dozen including one to a MiG 19. (Pakistani) F 104s engaged (Indian) MiG 21s in 1965 and came out on the short end, losing about a half dozen for no victories.

F 102s served in Vietnam, losing 14 mostly to accidents and ground fire, but including 1 to a MiG 21. No confirmed victories as far as I know.

F 101 was used in Vietnam as a recon plane in the early to mid 60's, losing 33 including 1 to a MiG 21.

F 105 served as a successful fighter bomber in Vietnam but took fairly heavy losses. 27 air to air victories were claimed (all against MiG 17s) for 17 lost to fighters. Ultimately they had to be escorted by F4s.

Click to expand...

US aircraft procurement in the 1950s was an absolute mess when it comes to figuring out what the intended job of the aircraft was from the designation.
Pre-dating the century series you had the YF-97

Which was produced as the F-94C even though there were very few parts that were interchangeable with the F-94B.
in 1947 this was followed by the unmanned F-98 Falcon.

in 1950 the air force decided not to use the "F" designation for unmanned aircraft. This also affected the F-99

Which was part of the US Army vs US Air Force pissing contest in which both wanted to control the anti-aircraft rockets/missiles.
The F-100 started in 1949 but was recast several times while still on paper, due the pressure of the Korean war the Version which we are familiar with (mostly) was given the go ahead as a day fighter in 1951. This was within a few months of the Mig Bureau starting work on the Mig-19. By the time the prototype flew there were 273 production aircraft on order ( a risk that did not pay off). this flight was on May 25th 1953. The first squadron to operation with F-100Cs was in July of 1955.

The F-101 is a rather mixed bag. It started as a long range escort fighter. A development of the older XF-88 but much larger, It won the design competition in 1951, However in time needed to actually design and build even the prototypes the Air Force had several changes of mind as to the actual role and wound up including nuclear fighter bomber, while still carrying the radar and fire control for air to air missions. The last of the F-101A recon planes (a later adaptation) were retired in 1979. The airframes were over 20 years old.
The F-101B was a two seat All-weather interceptor with 479 built. They were intended as a stop gap as problems with the F-102 were worked out. They wound up carrying the nuclear warhead Genie rocket and went through a number of of upgrades. The last few in service lasted over 10 years in training and the last was retired in 1982.
The F-101C was a Fighter bomber with a beefed up structure to handle higher G loads but the Air Force had 2nd thoughts and after 47 of them completed the next 96 as additional recon machines. Most later models were refurbed machines converted to recon except for the F-101F which was a dual control trainer.
Now, aside from doing photo recon I don't believe any F-101 Voodoo's ever performed their intended missions in anger. Which makes them a little hard to judge as to success or failure.
A F-101B with max external fuel could gross over 52,000lbs at take-off.

The F-102 was the well known Delta Dagger. Including 2 seat trainers about 1000 were built and the first squadron got them in April 1956. Which is about a year after the Day only Mig 19 went into service. The Dagger could max out at around 32,500lbs.
Part of the radar/fire control for the 102


The XF-103 was a bi powered interceptor

With afterburning turbojet and a ramjet, top speed was a hoped for 2600mph. It is 77 ft long.
the Familiar F-104,

Supposed to be a day fighter but the war it was intended for ended and it was forced into other roles, perhaps the worst of the century series.
The F-105 was never really supposed to be a fighter.
" For its primary mission, the aircraft would be expected to carry a nuclear store in an internal bomb bay. Because of the large size of the nuclear weapons of the day, the bomb bay had to be 15 feet 10 inches long, 32 inches wide, and 32 inches deep"
Complaining that an aircraft designed around that weapons bay is a lousy dogfighter kind of misses the point. It is like complaining that an Douglas A-26 was lousy dogfighter.
The F-106 is a revisited F-102 and again is an all weather interceptor tasked with stopping russian nuclear armed bombers. dog fighting was never one of the goals.
The F-107 had 3 prototypes and the F-108 was never built. The F-108 was in response to a 1955 requirement for "The specification was laid down on 6 October 1955, calling for an interceptor that could fly at 60,000 ft (18,000 m) at a speed of Mach 1.7 (1,122 mph (1,806 km/h), with a range of 1,000 miles (1,600 km) " which again rather rules out a dog fighter type aircraft.

I would note that most (all?) of these aircraft stayed with the original engine/s even though they did get later models higher powered/more reliable models.

The F-100C made it to service status 4-6 years earlier than the Mig 21 and Mirage III.
The other Century series fighters made it to squadron service several years before the Mig-21 and the Mirage III.

The Mig-21 has gone through 3 different engines (and several models of each) and several generations of avionics.
for many countries it is cheaper to upgrade old airplanes than to by new ones.

The Early and mid 50s were a period of confusion for aircraft designers. It wasn't until the end of the 50s and the early 60s that mach 2 was accepted as a defacto limit to speed (much above that required extraordinary investment in propulsion, structures and materials).

Comparing the success or failure of aircraft on their length of service or on kill/loss ratios while ignoring what their original intended missions were or the pace of replacement aircraft coming into service (and by even the mid 50s it wasn't even replacement aircraft, it was replacement weapons systems as a new aircraft would have new radar/electronics, new model missiles and sometimes a new generation engine.)

Simplistic comparisons don't work well.

XBe02Drvr said:

It was built to go fast and far down in the weeds as a nuke striker, was sleek, fast, and heavy, but agile it was not.

Click to expand...

The A-5 generated interest abroad for its sheer ability. The Hancock Evaluation Team sent to examine a Canberra replacement for the Royal Australian Air Force actually recommended the purchase of 35 Vigilantes, after evaluating the Mirage IV, BAC TSR.2, F-4C and F-111. Obviously the RAAF received the F-111.

The afforementioned TSR.2 was fitted with two modified VERDAN computers as fitted to the Vigilante, colloquially referred to as 'Very Effective Replacement for a Dumb Ass Navigator'!

Possibly to be read in concert with Chris Shores' Bloody Shambles?

Glider and Schweik

(With apologies) Continuing the Mig / Vietnam AC discussion, see the following attachment.

CRT=Combat Rated Thrust, MRT= Military Rated Thrust

FYI

Eagledad

PS Glider, while I am a fan of the F-104, history shows that the Mig had its way with the 104.

Glider said:

I have to admit that given the choice between the Mig 21 and the F104 then I would take the Mig 21.

Click to expand...

What year F-104 vs what year Mig 21??

Saying you would take a Mig 21 is like saying you would take a Corvette as a sports racing car. A 1954 six cylinder automatic corvette or a 1959 283 cu in V-8 manual Corvette or a 1964 327 cu in with disk brakes and independent suspension?

Mig 21 with the Tumansky R-11 or the R-13 or the R-25???
What avionics?
Etc.