Jet fighters/interceptors of the sizzling 60's?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

pbfoot said:
you want them up and far away nuclear debris would cause Green Peace to be a tad upset . also couldn't locate the info of Pland or Lancs ref response time that made the lightning so much "better"
Click to expand...

If it was 1983 and 20 or 30 "Bears" were approaching the British Isles, I don't Greenpeace would of been an issue.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
If it was 1983 and 20 or 30 "Bears" were approaching the British Isles, I don't Greenpeace would of been an issue.
Click to expand...
I agree but the further out is more optimal which gives you time to stop the one's that leak through.
I was in the Glasgow in 83 and the Greenpeace guys sure had a dim view of a Canadian who lived in Newfoundland and whose girlfiend a had a stuffed baby seal key chain True story
 
The Brit plan at the time was to vector Lightnings to the intercept. As I recall, they trained to intercept with an offbore of about 2-3miles, initiate a turn about 7 miles ahead of the intercept and perform a high-G 180 turn to end up aft of the bomber target to begin a missile run. Remember, that head on missile attacks were highly risky of failure at this time. BAE Hawks would serve as the secondary line of defense for those that got through using GCI, short range IR missiles and Aden cannon.

It is true, that the Lightning's Achilles Heel was its range... especially at max afterburner. She was wicked quick in acceleration. The F-106 was fast. But the acceleration curve was anything but linear. IIRC the F-106 was quick to above Mach 1, but then it literally took several minutes to accelerate significantly beyond that.

Cruise missiles ended all discussion of these types of operations. As Pb said, 100mi is nothing at 600+ knots
 
I'd go for the battle-proven F-4. The main reason the people in ex-Yu call all the US jets "fantom"
 
The 'F-4 was certainly a capable aircraft - but not, I would argue, a world-beating interceptor. As we have already seen above, the Lightning gets that title. I think the Phantom was a great all-rounder though, capable of dogfighting, and equally capable of delivering serious bombloads or numbers of PGMs from a variety of different attack profiles. And ultimately, that is why it replaced machines light the Lightning, you spent less on airframes and maintenance, and got more jobs done...
 
Hmm...

Methinks that "battle proven" attribute weights much more then "as seen on forum", no offense

EE Lightning, in order to be efficient, needs a C3 chain to work flawlessly and in just-in-time manner. Now, just throw some well timed diversions (like ones RAF put against LW in WWII days) and Lightnings must return to refuel.

It is, further, just un-imaginable for me to that Lightnings could make all the kills above, say, North Vietnam, in way F-4 did.
 
A fair point, but the F-4 saw relatively little use in the 'interceptor' role, in any war. That was my point, it is a battle proven all rounder, but I think very few of the dedicated interceptors built in the 60s (other than the Mirage family) saw much combat use - maybe, in that case, the Mirage should be proclaimed the best interceptor, although the Lightning to both types was demonstrably superior in the performance factors most critical to the interceptor mission...
 

I do not know. The Lightning was certainly a better interceptor than the F-4, but I would put my money on the F-4 as a pure fighter in say air to air combat (i.e. dogfighte, etc.) The F-4 has a much more impressive weapons package overall as well.

In the end I believe the F-4 was a much better aircraft than the Lighting.
 
All these posts saying the Lightning was only a straight line Interceptor? This is quite wrong. The Lightning was also the most manouverable fighter of its day, though the lack of range and armament are obvious minus points.

Manoverability, you ask?

In Rolan Beaumonts book 'Testing Early Jets' there is a flight test report on the Lightbning, written by a USAF test pilot, who is absolutely ecstatic with his flight in the Lightning. He describes it as being the 'hottest ship' he has ever flown and describes it further as 'faster than the F-104 but turns like an F-86, Incredible!'

Now he may be exaggerating a bit with the F-86 remark, but he is clearly not talking about 'point and squirt' is he.

The decision to replace the Lightning with the F-4 was as much political as military and almost all the ex Lightning pilots preferred it to their new mount. Such was the advantage of the Lightning as an Interceptor that the RAF felt compelled to maintain two squadrons in service until 1988, the original out of service date had been designated as 1976 (F-4 deliveries to the RAF began in 1970)!

The Lightning was the worlds fasting climbing fighter from its debut in 1960 until the debut of the F-15 Eagle in 1972 and was the fastest climbing fighter in RAF history EVER until the debut of the Eurofighter Typhoon. Not bad for something more than half a century old. Oh, and the P.1, fropm which the Lightning was evolved, went supersonic without afterburners in 1954, something which Lockheed is currently claiming as a 'first' for the F-22
 
Group,

Each aircraft will have advantages and disadvantes, and ultimly what one decides is the best fighter/Interceptor/cago/Ect.... will come down to personel likes and dislikes. Very few have flown the actual aircraft (even fewer in combat), and can really talk first hand.

Then any aircraft can be shot down with a lucky shot, by a pilot in the right place and right time.

Any comparisons would have to be equal, take off from the same field, same mission, and all the same variables. Run the senario multiple times, with the same pilots, and conme up with an average. even this senerio has disadvantages, aftrer multiple runs the pilots will know what to expect.

Personally I have never seen an aircraft I did not want to own (but a Wilga is the ugliest aircraft I have ever seen) and unfortunatly I run out of money before owning the airplanes I want! Please send all unwanted acft to me at . . . . . . .

From a maintenance standpoint, I like the A-10 (worked on them for 6 years). Altough I also liked the F-15 and B-52 when I worked on them (required more maint). I even enjoyed working on F-111, T-37, KC-135's, F-6, P-38, T-6, L-29, T-33, L-5, Yak-52, Provost and numerous other aircraft.

But I had the most fun flying 12 combat missions on C-130E's as a flight engineer in Iraq and Afganistan.

So keep up the arguements, and when you come to town, I will let you buy me a drink and we can continue the arguement! If you don't get too drunk, I mite even try putting you to work in the hanger...............
 
I do not want to pick between the Lightning and the F4 suffice to say that in this combination the RAF had the best in the world.
Over Germany where the Reds were close and time short, the Lightning is the plane for you. Over the North Sea, N Atlantic waiting for the long range bombers, the Phantoms range, payload and radar is the best.

As I said you would have to look long and hard, to find a better combination anywhere.
 

Bill G - My father in law was the CO of the last squadron to operate 106s - the flight test unit at Rocklwell on the B-1 program. The aircraft were actually pulled out of the bone yard and placed back into service. The 106's were used as chase planes and later during their "recycled service" they were used for dis-similar aircraft training and agressor training - all this in the late 80s out of plant 42, Palmdale.

He had a similar experience flying aganist F-15s.
 

I have 650 combat hours in Iraq, so I will let you buy me that drink...
 


Thanks Bill - here's one of his birds.
 

Attachments

  • 590060_B1BChase.jpg
    236.6 KB · Views: 82
FLYBOYJ:

That is one pretty bird! I would have loved to have flown with him in a B model! I would probably be still trying to find my stomache! But what the heck!

Bill G.
 
Bill G:

I was at the Griff from 75 to 78, Det 8, 26th Weather Squadron. I used to sit in the ROS across the runway from BASOPS and do the weather observations. I LOVED watching the 49th's 106's launch. Somewhere, I have some silent 8mm film my wife and I did of a 3-ship launch. Those AB shockwaves were something, as was that "BOOM!" when they lit.

If you recall, BASOPS and the weather shop were between the two hangars, one of which is where the 49th's maintenance shop was. To get to the control tower, we had to climb over the 106 area.

Remember the guy who spun in the 106? My first sight upon arrival to the Griff was the vertical stab of his plane, hanging from a big meathook in the hangar. I later met the guy, after he'd done the same trick to an F-15 near Sparrevohn (AK). That was when they finally grounded him.

BTW, did you know that Curt Poorman, formerly a support guy for the 49th, is the guy who designed the fin flash for their aircraft? He later became a forecaster. I worked with him at Elmendorf in the early 80's.

My wife and I belonged to the local radio control club. We used to meet in the 49th's bar and fly on the old runway. Now, that old runway is fenced off and in the midst of a forest of evergreens.

CD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Secret Cold War project "Alpha". When the U.S. managed to get hold of Soviet Jet fighters, including the Yak-23 (DOCUMENTARY)
Replies
1
Views
436
Gnomey
Korean War Aircraft: The F9F Panther, MiG-15, And Other Key Jet Fighters And Bombers
Replies
1
Views
223
Gnomey
A
Any FAA jet fighters good for Korean War?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
Jet Age History: Successes And Failures. The De Havilland Comet was the First Passenger Jet Airliner
Replies
3
Views
770
GreenKnight121
A
Best straight wing jet fighter?
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register