FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
His list has many "claims" and duplicates - a classic case of "cut and paste with great haste."
The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.
- Thread starter 102first_hussars
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's true, and pretty obvious, but if you parse through it, you can discard most of the chaff. If you have the patience. I discounted all the "unconfirmed" and "attributed to AAA/SAM".
Cheers,
Wes
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Dan - I think you have to do more research because I think you might be quoting lines from Top Gun or Hot Shots.
file:///C:/Users/JMOR1/Downloads/an-examination-of-the-f-8-crusader-through-archival-sources.pdf
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The F-8 shot down 19 MiGs, 16 MiG-17s and 3 MiG-21s. IIRC most of these missions were MiG Caps over land. 3 F-8s were lost to VPAF MiGs although the NPAF claimed something like 10 or 11.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think this the piece Mr. Fahey is referring to. Better explained if the full test was shown:
"While the North Vietnamese air force had excellent ground-controlled intercept radar to direct its planes, U.S. Air Force radar coverage ranged from spotty to nonexistent over assigned strike routes. Aircrews operated with little more than their eyes to guide them. Fighters escorting the bomb-carrying aircraft never knew where the threat would come from and therefore normally stayed close to the planes they were protecting so they wouldn't be caught out of position during an attack. As a result, U.S. Air Force aircraft usually entered engagements from a defensive and reactive posture.
On the other hand, the Navy used its carrier-based operations to maximum advantage. North Vietnamese fighters had less warning time to react to the U.S. strikes and far less opportunity to maneuver behind Navy fighters, whose backs were protected by ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. Additionally, naval air operations over North Vietnam were completely covered by radar-equipped ships operating in the Gulf under the code name "Red Crown." Navy pilots were mainly assigned targets in coastal areas where they had good radar warning and control from ships patrolling just offshore.
Navy fighters were therefore able to take a more aggressive posture than their Air Force counterparts, flying offensively oriented combat sorties instead of defensive close-escort missions. After-action reports found that 65 percent of Air Force losses were suffered by aircraft fighting from a defensive posture, which required a fighter under attack to reverse positions to get a kill, a very difficult maneuver to make. In contrast, only 20 percent of Navy and Marine Corps losses were aircraft in a defensive posture."
https://www.historynet.com/great-kill-ratio-debate.htm
What's not mentioned is this situation was a result of the ROEs imposed on aircrews coming out of Thailand.
"While the North Vietnamese air force had excellent ground-controlled intercept radar to direct its planes, U.S. Air Force radar coverage ranged from spotty to nonexistent over assigned strike routes. Aircrews operated with little more than their eyes to guide them. Fighters escorting the bomb-carrying aircraft never knew where the threat would come from and therefore normally stayed close to the planes they were protecting so they wouldn't be caught out of position during an attack. As a result, U.S. Air Force aircraft usually entered engagements from a defensive and reactive posture.
On the other hand, the Navy used its carrier-based operations to maximum advantage. North Vietnamese fighters had less warning time to react to the U.S. strikes and far less opportunity to maneuver behind Navy fighters, whose backs were protected by ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. Additionally, naval air operations over North Vietnam were completely covered by radar-equipped ships operating in the Gulf under the code name "Red Crown." Navy pilots were mainly assigned targets in coastal areas where they had good radar warning and control from ships patrolling just offshore.
Navy fighters were therefore able to take a more aggressive posture than their Air Force counterparts, flying offensively oriented combat sorties instead of defensive close-escort missions. After-action reports found that 65 percent of Air Force losses were suffered by aircraft fighting from a defensive posture, which required a fighter under attack to reverse positions to get a kill, a very difficult maneuver to make. In contrast, only 20 percent of Navy and Marine Corps losses were aircraft in a defensive posture."
https://www.historynet.com/great-kill-ratio-debate.htm
What's not mentioned is this situation was a result of the ROEs imposed on aircrews coming out of Thailand.
Considering that helos and UAVs are aircraft too, I make that 9929 losses, and since those are USAF figures, probably doesn't include USN/USMC.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
JMHO, but I think the F8's biggest nemesis was the F4. It was just so much more useful, it got used way more often than the F8.
Look at it from a logisitics standpoint....If you have a single platform that can be used as fighter, bomber and...I'll call it surveillance, then your carrier only needs to know how to maintain that single platform and almost all of the space allotted to house the parts to keep aircraft in working condition can be used for that single platform.
...now let's take the F4 out of the picture and see what we have....
We have the F8 as the fighter, the A4 as the bomber and the S3 as the surveillance. Now that carrier needs to know how to maintain at least 3 different aircraft (I'm sure there's also some helicopters in the mix there somewhere, but they would permeate both scenarios, so they cancel themselves out in this case, because they're going to be present regardless) and the same space now has to house parts to keep at least 3 different aircraft in working condition.
Sure, you could replace the A4 with the A8 and it would be, basically, the same platform but, IIRC, the commonality between F8 and A8 isn't the same as the F4 being used in the fighter/bomber role.
Like the F-106, the F-8 was liked by pilots. It was fast, it could climb like a monkey, it was agile. I understand it could chew up F4's and spit'em out like so many sunflower seeds, all day long.
However, the F4, in the eyes of our government, had satisfactory performance to get the job done and its versatility just made it the obvious choice more often than not.
It was quite Macnamarian, by design.
If you notice, with exception to a very few, just about every newer generation aircraft that's come down the pike since, has had that same versatility built into their designs.
...lessons from 'nam.
Look at it from a logisitics standpoint....If you have a single platform that can be used as fighter, bomber and...I'll call it surveillance, then your carrier only needs to know how to maintain that single platform and almost all of the space allotted to house the parts to keep aircraft in working condition can be used for that single platform.
...now let's take the F4 out of the picture and see what we have....
We have the F8 as the fighter, the A4 as the bomber and the S3 as the surveillance. Now that carrier needs to know how to maintain at least 3 different aircraft (I'm sure there's also some helicopters in the mix there somewhere, but they would permeate both scenarios, so they cancel themselves out in this case, because they're going to be present regardless) and the same space now has to house parts to keep at least 3 different aircraft in working condition.
Sure, you could replace the A4 with the A8 and it would be, basically, the same platform but, IIRC, the commonality between F8 and A8 isn't the same as the F4 being used in the fighter/bomber role.
Like the F-106, the F-8 was liked by pilots. It was fast, it could climb like a monkey, it was agile. I understand it could chew up F4's and spit'em out like so many sunflower seeds, all day long.
However, the F4, in the eyes of our government, had satisfactory performance to get the job done and its versatility just made it the obvious choice more often than not.
It was quite Macnamarian, by design.
If you notice, with exception to a very few, just about every newer generation aircraft that's come down the pike since, has had that same versatility built into their designs.
...lessons from 'nam.
Last edited:
Whoa, Elvis, you've got your chronology a little mixed up, and you're leaving out a couple players. First of all, S3s were ASW, not surveillance, and they never made the scene til after it was over. The all weather attack community (A6) was very much present, even on the 27 charlies, and Forrestal class and up housed RA5C photorecon birds as well. By the time I went in (1970), the A4 was being phased out as a front line attacker in favor of the A7 (the F8's descendant). Talk about a logistical nightmare; the A4 was a simple stick-and-rudder bird, while the A7 was a gee-whiz machine, full of gadgets and gewgaws. Now as for surveillance, I think you meant to refer to the E2, the "Hummer", so named for the sound of its T56 turboprops. Big deck carriers had to find room for a couple of these as well. And last, but not least, we mustn't forget the helo detachment, usually 3 or 4 SH3s to provide plane guard, SAR, and very occasionally, sonar dunking duties.
Any volunteers for Enterprise's supply department? Anybody? I can't hear you!
Cheers,
Wes
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
All sources
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually IIRC there was a fly off between the F-8 and F-4 that ultimately set the F-4 to be the fleet's primary fighter, although it did have a very effective multi-mission capability.
Never heard of an A8, but the commonality between the F8 and the A7 was essentially zero. The designs were a generation apart and almost everything was different. The one major advance with the A7 was a robust landing gear. F8s were notorious for their fragile gear.
Cheers,
Wes
You flew behind one?
Yeah, but in many cases they were able to track aircraft, and some were listening in on radio transmissions. Various regulations prohibited them from relaying the position of enemy aircraft (since they could pick up the IFF, it was possible to track them in the weeds), so they'd often get jumped.
Yeah, quite a number of them ended up either getting shot down by them or ended up having to take some seriously creative evasive action to avoid it. From some angles, it looked like a MiG-21
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
I hate it when I do that.
Thanks, and yes, you're right.
Actually, IIRC, that occurred prior to heavy engagement in Vietnam, when ACM was still considered obsolete and all-electronic BVR combat was the wave of the future.
When you find yourself inverted 1200 feet over downtown Key West with a first flight rider onboard, it kinda gets your attention. "WTF? WHERE'D THAT COME FROM? Must be that Stoof up ahead, he's the only other plane in the sky. BUT WE'RE FOUR MILES IN TRAIL! WTF??" I got reprimanded by the control tower at Key West International for unauthorized low level acrobatics in the control zone, and had to explain to the FAA and the Navy.
Beneficial side effect of this episode: my passenger was an obnoxious, arrogant, know-it-all, ace pilot wannabe with more ego than ability who was taking his "get acquainted" flight before joining the club. The club members heaved a sigh of relief when he finished cleaning his puke out of the plane, said "You bastards are crazy!", and disappeared never to be seen again.
Footnote: A year later, we heard he was discharged from the Navy, on a "dishonorable" because he refused orders that required flying to an overseas base, and told a Lieutenant Commander to "F___ off and die! No way I'm going to fly!"
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
Those were the Navy ELINT birds, who operated under radio silence. For the Air Force AWACS planes, call sign: Hillsborough, their job was air traffic control and fighter direction. Their handicap was that from south of DMZ, their coverage of the north was limited. That's why the clandestine Lima radar sites were set up in Laos. Red Crown on Yankee Station didn't reach much beyond Thud ridge.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
But your comments on the F4's versatility and it's multi role effects on succeeding designs are right on target.
Cheers,
Wes
Regarding the fly off between the XF8U-3 and F-4, that F-8 was a totally different jet than the F8U-1 and F8U-2N used in Vietnam. The Crusader III had a single J-75, same as the F-105 and F-106, carried 3 Sparrows 4 Sidewinders and the same crappy Colt 20mm cannons (never installed in the test articles) and at mach 2.3 the windshield began to melt. In the fly off, the XF8U-3 actually outperformed the F-4, but the single pilot got behind the curve especially in radar intercepts with the Sparrow. The Navy preferred two engines, two crew and an ability to be multi mission capable. So Phantom got the nod. The Crusader III airframes were transferred to NASA at Pax River for atmospheric research as the jet had a ceiling of 65,000 feet. NASA pilots and Navy F-4's would have mock dogfights and the NASA guys routinely beat the Phantom guys, but this stopped when the Navy asked NASA to stop picking on them.
Comparisons between the Vietnam F-8 and F-4 aren't so straightforward. The Crusader, as I mentioned earlier, is a Century Series equivalent, a second generation jet. The Phantom is a third generation jet with the F3H Demon being McDonnell's second generation design. Once the Phantom community learned via TOPGUN how to do ACM it did become a better air superiority fighter.
Comparisons between the Vietnam F-8 and F-4 aren't so straightforward. The Crusader, as I mentioned earlier, is a Century Series equivalent, a second generation jet. The Phantom is a third generation jet with the F3H Demon being McDonnell's second generation design. Once the Phantom community learned via TOPGUN how to do ACM it did become a better air superiority fighter.
Thanks for filling in the details. NASA beats Navy. Cool!
