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
Don't forget, the early F-4's didn't have a gun.
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.
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.
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.
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.htmlThanks for the link.
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
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.
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
Ack-Ack.. What is the story on this North Korean Mig-21? How did it get to the Gulf of Suez?
http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-north-korea-dogfight-yom-kippur-war-2013-6
Seems like the Egyptians shot down the Korean by mistake.
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.
This thread makes me want to play Strike Fighters 2 Israel...
i thought Navy F4 never got the internal gun and only the USAF got the gun?
The Migs in SEA avoided the USN Phantoms in favor of attacking the USAF until they also added guns.
i thought Navy F4 never got the internal gun and only the USAF got the gun?U.S. Navy Phantoms did not have a gun. F-4B and F-4J... They had the option to install a centerline gun pod, but I never saw one used.
The USN F8 Crusaders are another story and achieved quite a few air to air kills with their cannons.
I think that this has been very much over-hyped. Only a handful of F-8 kills were via guns. 4 or 5 IIRC.
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.
I think that this has been very much over-hyped. Only a handful of F-8 kills were via guns. 4 or 5 IIRC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Through-Midnight-Dramatic-Missions-ebook/dp/B000FCKIYQ)
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.
Wasn't the F-20 an evolution of the F-5? It's unfortunate it never saw any service with any country, though I do recall Northrop had some success in selling components that came out of the F-20 program before it was cancelled.
ack-ack
ack-ack
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.I've never heard of this, but I seriously doubt they destroyed the tanks with their 30 mm guns. Detracked them and caused lots of external damage to the equipment, likely. Often, this is all that you really need, but this is nothing that can't be repaired and not likely to kill the crew inside. Bombs and cluster mines were used against tanks and A-4 dropped lots of these in the Golan Heights in 1973 in an attempt to slow the massive armor charge of the Syrians.
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.The F-20 was overlooked by the IAF for several reasons. First, at the time Israel was developing its own fighter - the Lavi. Initially it was supposed to be a cheap modern fighter, something in the spirit of the F-20, but it ended up as a direct competitor to the F-16 at a higher price than initially intended. The US put a lot of pressure on Israel to cancel that project and eventually it was canceled (there were other reasons as well). Part of the pressure to cancel the project was a "carrot" - a very attractive arms deal that included the latest block of F-16s at an attractive price. These were brand new ,right off of the production line. Many of the fighters that Israel got from the US before that were used ones, handed down from the USAF. The IAF could not pass up such an offer and filled its ranks with shiny new F-16s. At the time, the Kfir filled the all purpose cheap fighter of the IAF and in combination with the A-4s on one side and F-16s, F-15s and Israeli-upgraded F-4 Phantoms on the other side, there was no need or room for the F-20.
Combat usage can make or break warplane reputations, yet if the operators are poorly matched inAs Chuck Yeager said: "it's the man, not the machine" that will win a dogfight.
level of competence, or asymmetric combat situations - then outcomes can be distorted beyond reasonably predictable outcome norms.
For example NATO didn't fight the Soviet bloc in a hot war, yet trained to do so,
& ran hard combat training scenarios against their own types.
& RAF Lightning jockeys always fancied their chances in A2A manoeuvres versus Phantom, Tornado & F-104s in those `70s-80s NATO training encounters.
As Chuck Yeager said: "it's the man, not the machine" that will win a dogfight.A well known saying in the fighter world; "Hamburger is still hamburger, not matter what you wrap it in".
& which would you rather chow down on, a $2.00 Mc Dubious..The $10.00 burger is still hamburger. You miss the point.
or a quality $10.00 super-gourmet burger?
For sure an ace will, vs a newbie [to quote Yeager] 'wax his fanny' in relatively similar types,
but pilots of fairly equal ability & who well know the flying attributes of both aircraft,
- will give the better performing plane - due justice..
& the point is?Since you seem to need to be contrary vs open minded, you'll never get the point. END OF CONVERSATION.
The pilot is the hamburger, since he is 'wrapped' in the plane?
Then the quality of the 'meat' outweighs the concern about the rest?
So an ace (like Yeager) would be a quality gourmet unit compared
to a $2.00 Mc Dogmeat burger?
Isn't that the point?
back to Mirage III...quality plane isn't it? :devilWhat a hideous beast! It looks like someone attached a mirage III wing to a F-100 body and on top of the place where the cockpit used to be, welded the entire front section an F-106 delta dart. EEEWWW....
it was in competition for the interceptor contract with this Nord 1500 Griffon II
(http://xplanes.free.fr/stato/french_ramjet/griffon_19.jpg)
mach 2.19 in 1959
Looks like an ancestor of the F-16.
Where is the bubble canopy?
(http://q-zon-fighterplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Convair-F-106-A-Delta-Dart.jpg)
(http://militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/convair-f102-deltadagger.jpg)
(http://militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/lockheed-f104-starfighter.jpg)
Bubble canopy 'too draggy'- don't think so.. How did the Sabre-jet manage?
It was subsonic.
It was subsonic.
Nonsense.
That wasn't Shilomo Aloni's conclusion in Mirage III vs MiG-21: Six Day War 1967. His conclusion is that the Mirage was better in the horizontal whilst the MiG was better in the vertical (better thrust to weight ratio).
To say that these two aircraft were closely matched is almost an understatement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AlsW_Xx3dg
J.A.W. you're talking about the windshield, which takes the brunt of the friction heating. That has nothing to do with if the canopy is bubble shaped or not. The canopies of the century fighters, the Mirage III, the F-4 and other '60s fighters are made of the same materials as the Mach 2.5+ F-15: stretched acrylic with fiberglass edge attachments. In the earlier jets the windshield (hardened glass) shielded the canopy. In later jets they partially work their way around the heat problem aerodynamically. If you don't have the spare power to counter the drag... no bubbles if you want to go to Mach 2 as was the case with the century fighters.
'Is that a bar I see like the W.W. had?'
Or is it also - a canopy in 2 sections?
(i.e. - not a true clear-view bubble - blown from a single Perspex sheet..)
Wanna expound on the stupidity of the downward firing ejection seat in the 'widow-maker' too, m.m.?
That specific story about the crazy mig21 - he was fighting the jet-age ace of aces in the Mirage. The outcome was inevitable - I am sure you watched the rest of the episode that describes what followed up in that sortie.
Epstein is the fifth highest scoring jet ace after two Germans and two Russians. The jet-age began in 1944.
Still leaves the Korean conflict... And no, the jet age started in 1944.Kramarenko if I am not butchering his name had less than 10 jet on jet confirmed kills, at least according to wiki. Which Korean ace had more than 17 kills in jet vs jets?
Kramarenko if I am not butchering his name had less than 10 jet on jet confirmed kills, at least according to wiki. Which Korean ace had more than 17 kills in jet vs jets?
Please provide a list of the names of the pilots and/or the serial numbersI don't need to provide anything. I don't even care who really got the most kills. My point regarding the crazy mig21 split S was the he was fighting one of the top jet pilots and the outcome does not say much about the relative performance of the planes as it was mostly determined my the pilots. The someone started to split hairs about the definition of "jet age" as if that mattered to 60-70 jets.
I don't need to provide anything. I don't even care who really got the most kills. My point regarding the crazy mig21 split S was the he was fighting one of the top jet pilots and the outcome does not say much about the relative performance of the planes as it was mostly determined my the pilots. The someone started to split hairs about the definition of "jet age" as if that mattered to 60-70 jets.
So, how many 'supersonic' jet kills were made at 'supersonic' speed then?
Did an IAF pursuit-vector-intercept-attempt ever result in a kill on a high Mach MiG 25 over-flight?
I don't need to provide anything. I don't even care who really got the most kills.
You know, for this particular discussion you may assume that Giora Epstein isn't ace at all and its all IAF propaganda :D
...
You know? If it suits you, lets call Giora Epstein the ace of aces of Israeli Air Force... or Ace of Aces of Israeli-Arabic wars. Is it ok by you guys?
This is your fifth post arguing the matter, so I do get the impression that you actually care.I was not arguing anything. Someone called 1944 the "jet age" and "jet aces" because of 262s and V1s, I replied that I was referring to jet on jet war. Then you mentioned the American and Russian ace of Korea that had about similar jet kill totals and I did not know about. I thank you for pointing that out, but non of that contributed to the main discussion, perhaps only diverting it.
Much better, and you guys should care. Epstein may not be the "jet ace of aces" of all time, but he was one of the best and a hero of your nation. He deserves every praise you can bestow upon his name.This is not really how we do things. We praise our war heroes in a much more humble way than other nations.
Counting from that list Vasillevich had 15 confirmed kills.
I see only 10 confirmed by actual loss records...
Then you need to look again.
How many of the US aces have their kill scores verified against Soviet records?
Read my entire post and you'll understand that Soviet records for the time period are almost worthless. The only thing they can prove beyond doubt is that they had typewriters.
Btw. Widewing, have you seen the guncam footage from that F9F/MiG-15 engagement (or maybe another one)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpsqUHWZmeY