Air Superiority Fighter of 60th-70th

[bozon]

The A-4 made a nice fighter for the IAF after they upgraded the engine.

The A-4 skyhawks were the first American jets to serve in the IAF and arrived in 1969. The Previous US planes were P-51s but no all of them made it to Israel in a legal way. The US did not sell arms to Israel till the Arab side aligned itself with the Soviets (post 1967, also reflected in the discussion above about N.Korea and USSR migs involvement). Thus, the Israeli-Arab conflict became part of the cold-war in which Israel was representing the west. The A-4 marked the change in the IAF from French to US jets.

The A-4 gave excellent service. Actually, they still do and will be retired soon. 45 years in combat service... not bad at all. The most remarkable thing about the A-4s is that there was nothing remarkable about them. There was no ground breaking technology in them. they were subsonic in the age of the Mach-2 fighters. No special tricks or gimmicks.

What they were is "just right" and that is what made them great. They had nothing that they did not need. They are tiny! it is really amazing to look at a fully loaded A-4 - I cannot imagine that thing getting into the air with so much hanging on its little wings, and still they do. In an age where dogfighting was much more dominant over BVR they were a @!#$% to take down. A well flown pair of A-4s can still frustrate modern F-16s in a dogfight if the latter are limited in their missile envelope. Because it was so simple, it left plenty of room for additions, upgrades and improvements. The IAF A-4 got new engines, avionics, ECM, (that's what the humpback on the Israeli A-4s is for) many of the latter made in Israel especially for the IAF.

To me the seemingly "unremarkable" A-4 is one of the best combat planes of the 60s and 70s. Oh so much cheaper then any alternative it epitomize the phrase "cost effective". They do not build them like this any more. 45 years in combat service - that does say something.

[Fulcrum]

I think that this has been very much over-hyped. Only a handful of F-8 kills were via guns. 4 or 5 IIRC.

This is correct based on the information I have as well.  Also, the Colt 20mm cannons on the F8s tended to jam...something I understand was never fully corrected.

FYI - for those interested, several good books out there on the F8.  Barrett Tillman's MIG Master provides a pretty good overview of the development and operational life of the plane.

[artik]

The A-4 gave excellent service. Actually, they still do and will be retired soon. 45 years in combat service... not bad at all. The most remarkable thing about the A-4s is that there was nothing remarkable about them. There was no ground breaking technology in them. they were subsonic in the age of the Mach-2 fighters. No special tricks or gimmicks.

I've seen a Discovery Wings TV series about A-4. They weren't too appreciated and were relatively  quickly phased out from USN and Marines in favor of bigger machines. However yet A-4 is known aircraft... One thing about USN/USAF is that they really like big fat, expensive machines, probably because they can be afforded. And this isn't only than, it is now today... Look at B-2, F-22 and F-35? Yet the affordable F-16 are the backbone if USAF and F-18 are the backbone of USN and highly successful war machines. They are frequently called "obsolete"... probably for not 100% performance related reasons.

So why the A-4 is actually considered so remarkable plane being so "average"?

I think this happens to every aircraft that falls in hands of IAF... They become glamorous.

- Who would know about the Mirage if it wasn't serving in IAF?
- Who would talk about unprecedented superiority of F-15 with its enormous amount of air to air victories with 0 loses (vast majority if them by IAF)?

Not that these aircraft would stand on their own, but in such a hostile environment as Middle East and with superior training of IAF every aircraft that serves there become famous. BTW, according to this (Hebrew) the F-5 was also considered, I wonder what would happen to the F-5 if it was operated by IAF.

[FLS]

Don't know where you came by this information but it's wrong. Even if it was true. How would the Mig pilot know it was a USAF or
USN Phantom? If they avoided F4s it was because they were ordered to intercept the bomb carrying F-105s and A4s.

Their Russian advisors told them based on where they took off from. It's pretty obvious who it is when come up from a CV.

In Linebacker I and II, the USAF had a kill ratio of 2:1 with .58 kills per sortie. The USN kill ratio was 6:1 with .98 kills per sortie.  The Navy was the bigger threat at that time.

[63tb]

This is correct based on the information I have as well.  Also, the Colt 20mm cannons on the F8s tended to jam...something I understand was never fully corrected.

FYI - for those interested, several good books out there on the F8.  Barrett Tillman's MIG Master provides a pretty good overview of the development and operational life of the plane.

Were these Colt 20mm still the American copies of the Hispano? I have read articles by Tony Williams and others, who described the manufacturing issues the American built Hispanos had during WWII. It is surprising if these same issues still existed when the F-8 was deployed. AFAIK the British never had these issues even when deployed in their jets.

63tb

[Shifty]

Their Russian advisors told them based on where they took off from. It's pretty obvious who it is when come up from a CV.

In Linebacker I and II, the USAF had a kill ratio of 2:1 with .58 kills per sortie. The USN kill ratio was 6:1 with .98 kills per sortie.  The Navy was the bigger threat at that time.

You're forgetting you said the reason the Migs were avoiding Navy F4s was that they were a bigger threat because of their cannons, again they had no cannons. Navy F4s were not a bigger threat than Air Force F4s. You've been watching too much Popeye the sailor or something. Kill ratios on US fighters at any time in Vietnam probably had more to do with the area they were opperating in than quality or bravery of the aircrew. The USAF had more Mig kills than the USN during Vietnam, that is a fact. However it doesn't mean the USAF Fighter Pilots were a bigger threat than Navy Fighter Pilots. I just means more USAF aircraft had the opportunity to engage and destroy Migs more than Navy aircraft.

 By the way there were 8 Mig 21s shot down during Linebacker II in December 1972. Two were destroyed by Navy F-4s, two were destroyed by B-52 gunners. The other four were destroyed by USAF F-4s.

[FLS]

You're right I said Phantoms and I should have just said Navy fighters. Point was the Navy was pro gunfighting and started Top Gun when people in the AF thought guns would make pilots turn and burn when they should be extending. Eventually everyone realized that fighters should have guns.

[Shifty]

Actually Top Gun was formed to revive the lost art of Air Combat not just Gun Combat.  The Navy was invested deeply in the air to air missile culture because of the F-4 being their main Fleet Defense fighter until the Tomcat became operational. Fighter Weapons School put a razor's edge on the employment of all air to air weapons. Good thing they did too it showed the Air Force they needed to reevaluate their thinking as well. 

[Fulcrum]

Were these Colt 20mm still the American copies of the Hispano? I have read articles by Tony Williams and others, who described the manufacturing issues the American built Hispanos had during WWII. It is surprising if these same issues still existed when the F-8 was deployed. AFAIK the British never had these issues even when deployed in their jets.

63tb

Not sure but I do not believe they were Hispano copies.  Widewing likely can shed some light on this. 

If memory serves the issues were with the feed mechanism under heavy Gs jamming and also with the ejection of spent cases inside the ammo compartment.  I'll need to go back to some of my source material to be sure. 

[Widewing]

Not sure but I do not believe they were Hispano copies.  Widewing likely can shed some light on this. 

If memory serves the issues were with the feed mechanism under heavy Gs jamming and also with the ejection of spent cases inside the ammo compartment.  I'll need to go back to some of my source material to be sure. 

The Mk12 20mm wasn't really a copy of the Hispano 404, it was a distant descendant of the Hispano. The Mk12 proved to be somewhat unreliable when exposed to high G loading. The Israeli's understood the  various issues with the Mk12 , having experienced the problems first hand. Many users of the A-4 replaced the Mk12s. I believe the Israeli's installed 30mm DEFA cannons.

[bozon]

Many users of the A-4 replaced the Mk12s. I believe the Israeli's installed 30mm DEFA cannons.

Indeed. The A4 pilot that got the two mig 17 kills said his was special because it had the  DEFA cannons. I think it became more common later.

[DaveBB]

Strangest kill of the Vietnam War:  A C-123 flying from Thailand on recon and support missions over Laos spotted a giant Soviet heavy-lifting helicopter.  After seeing this helicopter twice, the aircraft commander loaded multiple lengths of chains in the cargo hold of the aircraft.  The C-123 made several passes over the huge helicopter, having the load master and other crew throw the chains out of the back the aircraft.  Finally, one of the chains hit the rotor and the huge helicopter crashed into the jungle, resting on its side.  Later, an A-6 or A-7 mission destroyed the crashed helicopter and whatever it was helping build.

Source: "Flying through Midnight"
http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Through-Midnight-Dramatic-Missions-ebook/dp/B000FCKIYQ

[63tb]

The Mk12 20mm wasn't really a copy of the Hispano 404, it was a distant descendant of the Hispano. The Mk12 proved to be somewhat unreliable when exposed to high G loading. The Israeli's understood the  various issues with the Mk12 , having experienced the problems first hand. Many users of the A-4 replaced the Mk12s. I believe the Israeli's installed 30mm DEFA cannons.

Ok, thanks. As I recall the issue with the WWII American versions of the Hispano was loose tolerances in the firing chamber, causing partial primer strikes. When the British pointed this out, the American solution to this was to require the shells have a coating of wax!

[Gman]

Barrett Tillman was one of my favorite aviation authors growing up, him and Mark Berent.  Tillman I've seen on a few tv programs and also a couple of articles someplace talked about the cannons on the F8 and how unreliable they were, especially if fired under any G load.  Strange that a plane with the nickname "Last Gunfighter" had crappy poorly functioning guns.  I've still seen and read some great stories by Crusader pilots during the Vietnam war and it was a great single engine fighter by all accounts.

The SUU23 pod I've read had a gunsight of some kind that made hitting a target somewhat possible, but everything else I've read about the gun pods wasn't rave reviews for sure.

I've also read a lot about the air to ground IAF tactics during the 67 and 73 wars, and apparently they used the A4 with 30mm mounted guns to great affect against enemy tanks.  I've always wondered about that, a slow firing single barrel x2 gun platform vs the heavy tanks of the era, and wondered how many the A4's actually killed, as some guys had written that a number of times flights of 4 A4's would beat the hell out of a company of tanks, some pilots killing 3, 4, even 5 tanks in a single sortie.  I don't want to doubt them, it just seems like really good shooting, when you think about the A10 and its fire rate in comparison with the same caliber of round, those A4 pilots must have been very good shots and got in very close.

Speaking of Tillman, he wrote a book about the F20 Tigershark, and I always thought it was the perfect fighter for Israel.  It was probably the most efficient fighter of the time when it came to using fuel, it could hang with anything in the sky in visual range fights, and could be equipped with a good radar as well.  It was also very small, and hard to see, and from the pilots I know who fly the CF18, when they used to fight vs the CF5's, they said it was a real PITA due to their size.  They did have very good 20mm guns, mounted in a great position for good accuracy/trajectory as well, and like I said, due to the guns, size, and cheapness for the high performance given, I always figured Israel would be the one country that would have bought the F20.

[Ack-Ack]

Strangest kill of the Vietnam War:  A C-123 flying from Thailand on recon and support missions over Laos spotted a giant Soviet heavy-lifting helicopter.  After seeing this helicopter twice, the aircraft commander loaded multiple lengths of chains in the cargo hold of the aircraft.  The C-123 made several passes over the huge helicopter, having the load master and other crew throw the chains out of the back the aircraft.  Finally, one of the chains hit the rotor and the huge helicopter crashed into the jungle, resting on its side.  Later, an A-6 or A-7 mission destroyed the crashed helicopter and whatever it was helping build.

Source: "Flying through Midnight"
http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Through-Midnight-Dramatic-Missions-ebook/dp/B000FCKIYQ

Going to have to get that book, never heard of this encounter until today.  I had always thought the strangest A2A engagement of that war was the encounter at Site 85 in Laos, when NV AN-2 Colt bi-planes attacked the CIA installation and were shot down by an Air American Huey.

Shoot out at Site 85

ack-ack