Air Superiority Fighter of 60th-70th

[artik]

Interesting observation...

While without a doubt F-4 Phantom was excellent air superiority fighter that dominated in Vietnam Skys, it hadn't taken such a role by Israelies.

I'll explain...

Israel operated Mirage III, Nesher (IAI Mirage V) and F-4E Phantoms during 1970ths. Phantom was mostly used in air-to-ground missions. The vast majority of air-to-air victories were achieved by Mirage and Mirage derivatives during this period (phantom taking less than 1/3 of them)

See: http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/victories-israel.html

Reading some autobiographies of the Phantom squadron leaders, the Phantom was never considered as a vastly superior air-superiority fighter but rather massive and powerful attack machine.

More than that IAI Kfir that was developed in 70th as multirole combat aircraft that lost its air-superiority role only with F-15 and F-16 arrival...

I wonder why there is much a big difference in relation to Phantom in US and Israel?

- Was it because US believed in superior Phantom capability to carry missiles (8 vs 2 of Mirage/MiG-21)?
- Was it because Israel could not afford costly Phantom and Mirage and its derivatives were equally good?
- Was it because US had no their own "Mirage" (also century series had similar aircraft)?
- Was it because "Mirage type" aircraft were actually superior in many aspects?  (I know I can't tell it to US players... but yet)

What do you think?

[Ack-Ack]

I think the IAF already decided they had a dedicated A2A platform with the Mirage, while the Phantom would be more effective in the A2G role.  But if you look at the history of the Phantom with the IAF, it started to take on more of an A2A role as the years went by and I think it was during the Yom Kippur War that the Phantom achieved more kills than the  Mirage IIICJ the IAF flew, including the only IAF kill on a North Korean MiG 21 shot down over the Gulf of Suez.

ack-ack

[DaveBB]

Phantom pilots had to have special training to fight Migs.  The plane itself was designed in the 50s as a missile carrier.  There are lots of good books on the trouble the F-4 went through, and the ways these were rectified. 

The Phantom had some quirks, but there were ways around them:
(1) Extremely smokey engines- Pilots would use stage 1 afterburner in order to reduce the huge smoke signature from the engines.
(2) Poor turning radius (compared to Migs)- A maneuver was developed at Top Gun for an F-4 in a turning fight with a Mig.  The F-4 would pitch vertical, depart from controlled flight for a very short time, and spin it's nose in front of the Mig to get a firing solution.
(3) The main tactic that Top Gun taught was to double-team Migs. 
(4) Missiles in the 60s were unreliable and had a horrible launch envelope.  It was found that most missiles were fired well outside their launch envelope (either too close, too far away, etc).

[smoe]

Don't forget, the early F-4's didn't have a gun.

[Rino]

     It could also be possible that the F4 carried ALOT more ordnance than the Mirage/Nesher, so
naturally would be more useful in the air-to-mud role.  I'm also not sure, but didn't the IAF use
mostly shorter range IR missiles and guns?  The Phantom was designed for longer range BVR style engagements against Soviet bombers more than fighters.  It wasn't until 1967 that the internal M-61
20mm saw service on the E model. 

     This is one of the major reasons the kill ratio suffered so much in Vietnam as the ROE were almost
rediculously restrictive.  By the Gulf war, the AIM-7 had been much improved and the ROE adapted to
better engage enemy targets in the mid range envelope.  During the Vietnam war, it was not unknown
for a pilot to fire 2 or 3 Sparrows to get a Mig to turn so he could engage with a Sidewinder.  Since the
Aim-7 was about 3 times more expensive than the Aim-9, this didn't make the beancounters happy.

[Gman]

SMOE, during Vietnam, F4's doing CAP often would carry the "pistol", a centerline gun pod.  With no modern avionics or site, it was a crapshoot.  Once the F4E came along, using the gun became much easier from what I've read.  I read an article written by Ritchie, the first ace in the F4 for the Air Force, and he talked about forgetting about the gun in the F4E during one fight, he was so used to not having one, or a reliable accurate one, in the older models.

The OP question I think is odd.  The USAF, US Navy, and USMC all used the F4, everyone knows that, but they also had other types, types that matched up very well to the Mirages and Kfir's.  The Navy had the F8 Crusader in that time period, an excellent single seat single engine fighter, very maneuverable, great thrust/weight for the time, and 4 decent reliable guns.  Sounds like the perfect Israeli fighter to be honest.  There was also the A4, again, used by the Israeli's, plus smaller lighter "Mirage" types that the USAF had like the F5 and others.

I think Israel just made the best of what they had, or better said what they could get during the time period specified.  Also, the OP being from Israel, I'm sure he knows better than us, but the airspace isn't all that big, and you don't need as large of a fuel carrying monster like the F4 in order to do the job.  Also regarding the missiles, Israel was smart enough to figure out that the missiles of the day weren't reliable in the least, even the best Aim9's at the time had laughable firing parameters, and even then 2/3's of them missed or didn't work.  So, they focused on the gun.  Nearly every video you see of the IAF during the wars of 67 and 73 goes on and on about their a2a gun kills.  I'm pretty sure the reason is that the IAF trained their pilots to use the gun to great affect as the missiles on both sides, US and Soviet, just weren't all that lethal yet.  The enemies of the IAF probably didn't focus on gun training as much, if at all, and didn't know how to respond to close maneuvering Mirage, A4's, and even F4's of the IAF.  Just what I've read, but it seems pretty valid.

So, IMO, the reason the IAF used the F4 primarily as a strike fighter was that during that time the IAF identified that a: they didn't need such a longer range fighter in their close range airspace, b: the missiles were terrible, and to focus on using gun armed fighters, which the F4 wasn't until the E model, in the early 70's, and even later for the IAF, c: The Israeli defense establishment could far more easily copy Mirage fighters and manufacture them than they could F4's.  This all said, I realize that the IAF did score a large number of kills with missiles during the wars of the period, but god only knows how many missiles missed or just didn't work, I'm sure it was along the lines of the US in Vietnam, which was a lot.  Having the skill and capability to gun enemy fighters probably made a big difference in IAF survival and kill ratios.

The last point, c:, I brought up regarding Israel making its own fighters like the OP alluded to is important.  They never "made" their own during that period, is was much more of a reverse engineer and re manufacture type of deal I believe.  The F4 was far larger and more complex than the Mirages, and the parts were probably easier to either source through grey area means or to build in country for Israel.  That and the fact that the F4 wasn't the optimal aircraft for a cheap a2a fighter with a ground attack capability anyway.  Israel did eventually get there IMO.  The Lavi was a nice little fighter.  It's called the "J10" now in China.  Of course Israel protests that it would never, EVER betray the US and transfer weapons tech to China like that (snicker, cough), but all sources say that it not only looks almost identical, that China actually received a flyable Lavi once upon a time. 

[artik]

But if you look at the history of the Phantom with the IAF, it started to take on more of an A2A role as the years went by and I think it was during the Yom Kippur War that the Phantom achieved more kills than the  Mirage IIICJ the IAF flew

Actually the statistics of Yom Kippur War:

- Phantom F-4E - 90 kills + 3 shared
- Mirage IIICJ/IIIBJ - 102 kills + 3 shared
- Nesher (IAI Mirage V) - 132 kills + 7 shared...

Which lives the Phantom with about 28% of all A2A victories.

Don't forget, the early F-4's didn't have a gun.

Actually IAF Phantoms were F-4E models with guns... I don't think that IAF would agree to buy ones without a gun.
Even when Israel bought their first US aircrafts - A-4 Skyhawk they required an upgrade of their 20mm guns to 30mm DEFA guns that were more reliable and efficient.

There was also the A4, again, used by the Israeli's, plus smaller lighter "Mirage" types that the USAF had like the F5 and others.

A-4 was never really a fighter and never used in this role (also some managed to get some A2A kills) F-5 had very limited use by USAF also mostly in a2g role. Also it was used by South Vietnamese air force. (BTW F-5 is beautiful little plane)

Also, the OP being from Israel, I'm sure he knows better than us, but the airspace isn't all that big, and you don't need as large of a fuel carrying monster like the F4 in order to do the job.

Actually one of the major favorite features of F-4 was its range and capacity. It was frequent that Mirages operated on their range limit and could afford very short time over the target. Don't forget that they should cross all the Sinai territory and penetrate to deep Egypt territory frequently.

I'm pretty sure the reason is that the IAF trained their pilots to use the gun to great affect as the missiles on both sides, US and Soviet, just weren't all that lethal yet.  The enemies of the IAF probably didn't focus on gun training as much, if at all, and didn't know how to respond to close maneuvering Mirage, A4's, and even F4's of the IAF.  Just what I've read, but it seems pretty valid.

Yes, gunnery was important part, and significant part of not major part of all A2A victories were achieved with guns (can't find exact statistics).

One of the most successful missiles was actually Shafrir 2 (Israeli analog of AIM-9B) that performed exceptionally well 176 lunches and 89 kills (~50%) which was higher than similar ratio for AIM-9 at IAF. Also it was mostly attributed to the better training with Shafrir 2 such that it was lunched carefully in the correct fire envelope.

Interesting note: on the day that first 3 F-15 kills were achieved one of them was actually a gun kill (first world and IAF F-15 kills).

Also important note, because of the air-2-ground role of Phantoms in IAF, it had suffered significant looses to SAM and AAA in that period. Such that one of the IAF squadrons had lost half of their machines. On the other hand some Nesher squadrons managed to pass the entire war without a single loss while achieving many air to air victories.

Finally I assume that the main reason was

- IAF had good air superiority fighters like Mirage and Nesher, but they were less efficient against ground targets especially covered by heavy SAM umbrella that required very complex bombing tactics and avionics.
- On the other hand, A-4s and F-4 had much better a2g capabilities that is why they mostly operated in this role

[bozon]

Artik,
The IAF is very offensively orientated. Therefore it dedicated its best machines of the time, the F-4 phantoms, to do the most difficult task of deep strikes. Mirage III were mostly dedicated to air-superiority role and the Nesher were mixed. Therefore the Mirage and Nesher tended to be more ready to go A2A and had more opportunities to do so.

The theoretical BVR ability of the F-4 remained mostly in theory. Missiles were not good enough, sensitive to various forms of counter measures and most importantly, the conditions were never right to make the most out of it. Most kills in 1973 were still done with the cannons, so the large missile load of the F-4s did not give them a large enough advantage over the Mirages to prefer them in the air superiority role.

The first 2 days of Yom Kipur war were not part of the normal IAF mode of operation. Everything was thrown at the Egyptian crossing of the canal since there was nothing else to stop them. Most of the Israeli ground army was many miles away unready and the small force spread along the Suez was being overrun. F-4 being the most devastating ground pounder in the IAF made sortie after sortie into the SAMs range and suffered badly, while the Mirage held the air defense.

So the bottom line is that IAF did not consider the F-4 inferior to the Mirage in the A2A role, it just had other more important roles to do.

A-4 was never really a fighter and never used in this role (also some managed to get some A2A kills)

The two kills (mig 17s) were done by the same pilot in a single sortie. The A-4s did not even had an A2A gunsight for the cannons - he aimed by intuition. The second kill was even more amazing - he unloaded a full salvo of HVAR rockets at the mig in a tail chase and completely evaporated the mig.

See: http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/victories-israel.html

Thanks for the link.
I was looking for the exact date of the 5 USSR mig21 kills. 30 July 1970. 

[GScholz]

I would say that the best fighter of the '60s was probably the Mirage III, and in early '70s the Mirage F1 until the F-15 and F-16 became operational in the late '70s. The Mirage III and F1 is certainly some of the most battle proven aircraft of the cold war having seen action in wars in South America, Africa and the Middle East/Asia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTao-UaeECI

[icepac]

Anybody notice that Chalmers "slick" Goodlin got a kill in a spitfire?

He was the first X1 pilot played by William Russ in "the right stuff".

Great pilot, great actor.

[Fulcrum]

I would say that the best fighter of the '60s was probably the Mirage III, and in early '70s the Mirage F1 until the F-15 and F-16 became operational in the late '70s. The Mirage III and F1 is certainly some of the most battle proven aircraft of the cold war having seen action in wars in South America, Africa and the Middle East/Asia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTao-UaeECI

Mirage III was also the most beautiful fighter of its generation as well (IMHO)....

[bozon]

I would say that the best fighter of the '60s was probably the Mirage III, and in early '70s the Mirage F1 until the F-15 and F-16 became operational in the late '70s. The Mirage III and F1 is certainly some of the most battle proven aircraft of the cold war having seen action in wars in South America, Africa and the Middle East/Asia.

The Mirage III was not a great dogfighter. It was designed as a missile armed interceptor and early models did not even have cannons. Just about any plane in the sky could out-turn it, but it had great speed and climb (interceptor after all). At the time the France and Israel had good relations and the Mirage III was the best the IAF could get their hands on. The US would not sell any arms to Israel at the time, the USSR was equipping the arab armies and I do not know about the brits, but no weapons were bought there by Israel after the Meteor that the brits in their post-war economic state were selling to just about anyone.

In addition, the IAF had good experience with Dassault company in the 50s and early 60s with the Ouragan and Mystere. After the Mirage III performance in the hands of the IAF during the 6 days war and beyond Dassualt sales and reputation skyrocketed. However, immediately after the 6-days war de Gaulle imposed a weapon embargo "on the middle east" which practically meant Israel, thus ending the love affair between the IAF and Dassault - or almost. The Mirage V was designed partially to meet the requirements of the IAF, but was not ready when the embargo took effect. The Israeli Mossad got hold of the Mirage V plans which aided the Israeli aircraft industry to build the Nesher. Some claim it was not very difficult to get those plans and Dassault simply gave them away willingly "under the table" so de Gaulle would not be pissed.

The Mirage III was the equivalent of the AH 190D9 - fast, good roll rate and climb but appalling in a turn fight. The IAF simply learned to make the most out of it. I am quite sure that several American planes were just as good or better: F-8 Crusader, F-5, and F-4 phantom are strong contenders, the latter was definitely better after getting its cannon. The F-106 was useless without a cannon. The British Electric Lightning and Hawker Hunter were also very good, though the Hunter was probably too slow. The Russian Mig 21 was a superb fighter, very close match to the Mirage III with some advantages and disadvantages. It turned a lot better than the Mirage.

I grew up next to one of the IAF bases that had Kfir (the next Israeli development of the Mirage after the Nesher) squadrons. The arrow silhouettes in the sky is something I grew up with. I have seen many from up close. Beautiful beautiful planes the Mirages and much smaller then the impression given by pictures. Too bad France went all French on us after the 6-days war and we could not get more of their planes. I am sure Dassault wished things were different as well.

[GScholz]

High-speed maneuverability of the M.III was nothing short of excellent compared to its contemporaries. Low-speed handling was certainly on par as well, but the MiG-21 and F-5 was a bit better. The Israeli M.IIIs often fought older generations of Soviet and British fighters like the MiG-17 and Hawker Hunter which are obviously more maneuverable than any '60s fighter. The first major production model of the Mirage series, the Mirage IIIC, was armed with twin 30 mm DEFA cannon. The IIIB was a two-seat trainer, and only ten IIIAs were produced (it was effectively a pre-production series).

Is indeed a very beautiful plane.

Swiss M.IIIs in the Alps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQU1f_bgPFE&feature=player_detailpage#t=37

[Ack-Ack]

Other than the North Korean MiG 21 shot down over the Gulf of Suez during the Yom Kippur War, did the Israelis shoot down other Commie Bloc jets during the war? 

ack-ack

[GScholz]

Do you mean Soviet jets flown by Soviet crews, or just Soviet jet designs? If it's the latter then all the Arab states flew MiG-17s and 21s. IAF claimed 73 kills against Egyptian MiG-21, and 29 against Syria.