F-4 Phantom II

[FOGOLD]

Phantom a remarkably modern aircraft considering it was designed in the 1950's.

[Rino]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The F-4 was not maneuverable compared to other fighters.  I've read three or four books just on air combat in Vietnam.  Heres the F-4s downfalls and heres how the problems were solved:

Poor maneuverability- Pilots switched to vertical tactics
Poor visbility-  Wingman tactics and staying fast
Poor missle performance- Special training schools for pilots/ use of sidewinder

The pilots did the best they could with the wrong equipment for the job (The F-4).  Top Gun taught pilots to use 2 on 1 tactics against Migs (mostly Mig-17s) in order to win.  

The saving grace for the F-4 was that migs usually didnt even carry missles.  Only rarely did Mig-17s carry atol heat seakers.  The F-4 needed about 1500 yards seperation to stay out of cannon range.

In a horizontal fight, the F-4 pilot could go vertical, depart the plane momentarily and use cross-controlled rudder and ailerons to do a sort of strange hammerhead and get the nose pointed on or ahead of the Mig.

It could take 3 to 4 seconds to set up a radar missle lock on a Mig.  The average time a Mig stayed in the pilots windscreen was .5-1.5 seconds.

So in summary, flying the F-4 required pilot training above and beyond average training to make him competent.  Without this additional training, (Top Gun), F-8 Crusader pilots excelled at air to air combat.

     I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from Aqua, but you
can lockup a target using the APQ-120 alot faster than 3-4 seconds.  
Secondly the AIM-7 has a min range and the times you speak of means
you are already in the knife-fight zone.

     The F-4E had a semi-auto mode for locking up targets called auto
acquisition that was activated using the nosewheel steering button by
the pilot's pinkie on the stick.  On hitting that button the radar would
boresight, then sweep down -22 degrees to +65 degrees vertically
and 2 degrees either side of the centerline at a range of 5 miles.  If it
"saw" anything during the sweep it would lock it up.  It worked very
quickly in my experience.

     The Phantom was the modern equivalent of the P-47.  The Migs were
relatively short ranged <2 were actually run out to sea and fuel starved
for kills> and low payload.  Naturally they were more manuverable, they
were single purpose aircraft.

     Vietnam proved the folly of allowing politicians to set combat conditions
instead of the actual operators. Waiting till SAM sites were operational
before allowing attack, leaving the Mig bases unmolested because you
were afraid you might kill some rooskies was insanity.  The freaking
Russians flew combat sorties against us in both Korea and Vietnam.

     Again, stupid ROE like having to visually indentify the enemy before
allowing the pilot to fire had alot to do with the mismatch in Vietnam.
In fact, if you look at the left wing of the F-4 in the Heritage flight you
will notice a big tube sticking out.  That is the TISEO system, a long range
camera that was used to try to ID targets..not really that useful though.

[Rolex]

Originally posted by Maverick
Rolex,

You look less smart the older you get.............

Either that or you have a significant problem associating things properly.

Hey! Watch it! You aren't exactly a spring chicken yourself...

You're right though, I should have associated it this way:



Ahar!

[Grayeagle]

Kinda humorous comparin f-4's to Migs of the 'nam era.

Very much like comparin a jug to a 109F.

A few huge steps beyond apples an oranges

Also cracked me up when someone mentioned '105's were ineffective against Migs' .. y'think? Just a wee bit different design parameters.  
The reverse is true also .. no way could you hang anywhere near the ordnance load on a mig, or deliver it nearly as accurate as the 105 did.

Looking at a mig 21's cocpit .. it's a good thing they had ground controllers to vector them to a target .. because even the 105 has better visibility out of the cockpit.

It's no wonder the F-8 Crusaders ate migs for a lite snack. They could and did out-turn, out accelerate, outclimb, and just generally *own* them whenever they saw them. (not the recce crusaders .. they dint even have a gun and the airframe was not built for high G maneuvering so don't even go there).

I love readin about the early engagements against the last of the Gunfighters .. they spanked migs hard.

Readin about the trials and tribulations of the Phantom against the Migs in 'Nam .. we've all heard it before .. zekes .. 109's ..can't turn with 'em in American iron.
Even the Wildcat pilots worked it out .. 'special tactics' .. aye .. 'Thatch Weave' .. Lead and Wingman ..Boom an Zoom ..still as viable in 'Nam as it was in the early '40's.

Even further back .. Rickenbacker and his Spad .. said it turned like a truck compared to the Fokker's .. so he chose not to turn with them.

And aye .. the Rules of Engagement SUCKED .. North Vietnam would not have had an air force or anything else in 5-6 days or less without all the handicaps forced on the Allies. (think Arc-Light an such ..sheesh them B-52's could drop a LOT of bombs)

Just my opinion.

-GE

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Grayeagle
It's no wonder the F-8 Crusaders ate migs for a lite snack. They could and did out-turn, out accelerate, outclimb, and just generally *own* them whenever they saw them. (not the recce crusaders .. they dint even have a gun and the airframe was not built for high G maneuvering so don't even go there).

I love readin about the early engagements against the last of the Gunfighters .. they spanked migs hard.

I'm relatively certain that only two of the F-8 kills were gun kills. The balance  were Sidewinder kills, and it should be noted that F-8s shot down only 18 MiGs during the whole of the war. Three F-8s were lost to MiGs.

F-105 pilots shot down 27.5 MiGs, one being shared with an F-4D. Here's an interesting fact. Of the 27.5 kills credited to F-105s, 25.5 were gun kills, two with Sidewinders. That's 12 times as many gun kills as the F-8. F-105 losses to MiGs were relatively small as it was exceptionally fast and difficult to engage. Its air to air kill to loss ratio was about 1:1, which isn't too bad when considers that the F-105 was a tactical bomber often pressed into strategic bombing and into the very dangerous Wild Weasel role. F-105s were frequently tasked with missions taking them into the highest flak concentrations ever assembled in any war.

My regards,

Widewing

[WilldCrd]

I've always loved the look of the phantom. When i was a kid My first die cast model was of a navy f-4
Its up there in my top 5 most favorite beautiful planes ever.
It just always looked like a badass plane to me that could kick butt and fly REALLY fast.
And as a kid thats all that was important

[Halo]

Speaking of F-105s, saw my first one in 1960 when went to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, as an AFROTC cadet.  That plane was HUGE, especially after seeing the little F-104.  Couldn't believe it had only one engine.  
The Republic F-105 Thunderchief was a worthy successor to the P-47 Thunderbolt, sharing many of its advantages and disadvantages, e.g., basically big fast tough ordnance carrier but not an agile dogfighter.

We were lucky to see the then-new 20mm gatling cannon fired from a test stand, and then a flight demo for the Japanese Air Force chief of staff that included an F-104 going supersonic (saw a little dot streaking over the field from the Gulf of Mexico, then went vertical with orange shock waves off its wings and was almost out of sight before the sonic boom hit), and a B-36 dropping one bomb at a time from the first time you saw it in the distance from the north until it flew out of sight to the south over the gulf).

The Air Force later got a lot of mileage out of its F-4s, the first and only fighter plane the Air Force ever adapted from the Navy.  That pride thing helped spur development of the USAF F-15 and F-16.  Interesting the Navy eventually bought the F-18 after the Air Force rejected its YF-17 predecessor in a flyoff against the F-16.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Halo
Speaking of F-105s, saw my first one in 1960 when went to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, as an AFROTC cadet.

I saw F-105s often, growing up on Long Island during the 1950s and 60s. During the summer of 1960, an F-105 crashed in a potato field about 1/2 mile from our home. Playing in the back yard, I watched it fly over several times and it was clear to me, even at 6 years old, that something was amiss. It was literally wobbling; rolling from side to side and pitching up and down. The last time I saw it it flew directly over our house only a few hundred feet high. Seconds later, we heard and felt a powerful "whump" and saw a huge black cloud of smoke boil up above the trees to the west.

My mother grabbed both me and my younger brother and tossed us into her '58 Ford Station Wagon and raced over to the crash site. We arrived before the local fire department and parked on the south side of the road. In the potato field on the north side, heavy smoke and fire were visible about 200 yards distant. I saw a man walking toward our car from the field to the south. I saw that he had a helmet on. I pointed to him and my mother realized that this was the pilot. Both my mother and another man who had stopped, ran to the pilot and helped him across the field (smelly cabbage on that side). The man did not appear to be hurt. He sat on the tailgate of our Ford, lit a cigarette and talked to a police officer who arrived at the same time. The cop jumped into his car and started talking on the radio.

About this time, fire trucks arrived and a crowd was growing. Some time after, a helicopter landed in the potato field and a short time later, we were told to move back from the crash scene. My mother took us home shortly thereafter.

Many years later I read somewhere that this new F-105 Thunderchief suffered a hydraulic system failure during an acceptance flight and the pilot had been trying to assess the situation. Eventually his ability to control the fighter was such that he wrestled it towards the farm and ejected.

To this day, I recall seeing that F-105 like it was yesterday. It's distinctive intake shape and the shiny bare metal fuselage were indelibly etched in my brain.

In those days, my parents would drive us out to Grumman's Calverton facility or over to Westhampton AFB where we would watch military planes coming and going while having a picnic on the side of the road. My father owned a house near the Air Force base, which he rented to a pilot named Oswald. He took us onto the base for a tour. All very impressive to a 3rd grader. I do recall that most of the fighters there were F-101 Voodoos. McDonnell had cool names for their fighters; Phantom, Banshee, Demon, and Voodoo. At 8 years old, I knew them all...

My regards,

Widewing

[bozon]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The F-4 was not maneuverable compared to other fighters.  I've read three or four books just on air combat in Vietnam.  Heres the F-4s downfalls and heres how the problems were solved:

Poor maneuverability- Pilots switched to vertical tactics
Poor visbility-  Wingman tactics and staying fast
Poor missle performance- Special training schools for pilots/ use of sidewinder

Poor visibility was also partialy countered by having two people in it. Not a common feature at the time.

But the real advantage of the F4 was its radar (and that's the real reason for it being a two seater). Do not under estimate the importance of this, as having a proper radar in the 1960s was not trivial. Most Migs didn't have it. This was a BIG advantage - not only it could carry radar guided missiles (not very effective) but it could also located and intercept (or avoid) Migs far beyond visibility range while they couldn't.

One of the crucial things when initiating a fight is to have visual contact with the enemy. It is increadibly hard to spot a plane comming at you at closure speeds of 800-900 Knots before they blow past you. It is much easier to do when you have a decent chance of getting radar contact at 20 miles allowing you to manuver before visual range and the radar is telling you where to look.

The saving grace for the F-4 was that migs usually didnt even carry missles. Only rarely did Mig-17s carry atol heat seakers. The F-4 needed about 1500 yards seperation to stay out of cannon range.

Mig 21s certainly did carry missiles and still got whacked by the F4. At least the Egyptian, Syrian and Russian ones in 1970-1973. Missiles at that time were not very effective and very restrictive in their envelope - "1840" missiles, meaning 1800 m 40 degrees aspect and very low G to launch. Many of the killes were still credited to cannons.

Bozon

[Grayeagle]

Widewing:

The Crusader fighter version wasn't involved in southeast asia very long, as I am sure you also know. If it had been there for the duration in significant numbers (not just one marine bird that was used for ground attack until it broke beyond fixing).. purty sure more migs woulda taken dirt naps as the Crusaders got into thier gig.
Yes .. I know they carried sidewinders.. and yes I also knew most of the other things you posted.

I also saw the picture of the Super Crusader trials against the then brand new F-4 .. as you probably have seen also.

I've also read the accounts of some of the dogfights .. as you may have also.

Yes .. the F-4 had a good radar. That's why the mig ground controllers tried to vector their migs into their rear arc.. and succeeded in most cases due to the RoE. (same time, same route, same alt every day ..it wasn't rocket science or much skill to setup a bounce)

Yes the 105's shot down migs. . I worked on 320, now sittin at the AF Museum, with two stars on its vari-ramps. One of it's kills was due to dropping it's tanks thru a cloud layer and taking out a mig below it they never knew was there.

Thud Ridge ..the book .. has an excellent account of what an attack by mig's was like in a 105. They usually didn't even know the migs were there until someone got lit up.
I talked to a few 105 pilots ..couple were in the R/C club at George when I was stationed there '76-'81 .. 4 would go in on a target .. one would make it out.. just another day in route pac 6. They sure as hell didn't go after migs looking for a fight. In AH terms ..they were buffs .. fast ones .. fairly accurate, ..somewhat survivable if they had escort and a bit of jamming so Migs, triple A and SAM's wouldn't massacre them. More often than not all they had was their speed.

Also read more than a few accounts of an F-4 attempting to shoot all 4 sidewinders at a single target, one right after another .. then his wingman doing the same ..*with* valid parameters .. and *eight* sidewinders either failing to ignite, failing to track, or stayin right there on the rail.. useless.

Then there's Steve Richie ..an Duke .. and a few dozen others .. when the missile worked .. they got kills.

Just my opinion .. the Crusader would have owned Migs given more than the couple of months they had in theater.

-GE (the Phantom did 'ok' .. but it wasn't the close in air-air fighter the Crusader was, cost much more, much bigger target, etc)