By: Sens
- 4th March 2010 at 18:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How good were the IR guided BVR missiles of the time? Could they have been no worse than AIM-7D/Es for head-on shots against bombers and/or fighters?
I'm thinking specifically of the British Red Top and French R.530 IR, which both seem to have been quite capable against bombers, including limited all-aspect capability. Looks like the British were happy enough with Red Top that they cancelled development of a radar-guided version. As for the R.530, it seems comparable to the Sparrow, i.e. not very reliable and requiring lots of care, but worked at least some of the time for the Israelis (radar-guided version) and Pakistanis. The R.530 has a bad reputation, but in Spanish service 15 out of 16 where successfully launched during end-of-life tests in 1986, so not too bad. The IR version was actually said to be more effective, due to the fire-and-forget mode which reduced the likelihood of pilot error.
(Only the AIM-4/D Falcons were almost completely useless due to limited seeker cooling and no proximity fuse)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Red_Top
We have to keep in mind, that in the cool air high up that IR seeker did work satisfactory only.
The radar-variant still in need was not bought, because the RN got the F-4K with AIM-7s, which were later replaced by the Sky Flash AAM in RAF-service.
By: Pioneer
- 5th March 2010 at 02:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Was the Crusader good enough to protect the carrier from true bombers and their stand-off weapons without BVR weaponary?!
I would categorically say no!
Nor was there any other one type of aircraft that the U.S Navy had that could claim this!
The fact is that to defend a carrier battle group, you need a integrate and layered air defence system. No matter how good you think your system is i.e the F-4 Phantom II or even the purpose designed and built mighty F-14 Tomcat!!!!
You will always get leakers through with a good and smart executed enemy!
Not even the Soviets were that dumb or over confident to think all they had to do was stand-off with Bear's, Badger's and Backfire's (not to mention their SSGN's) and ripple launch their massive and powerful ASM's.
One must remember the West in general had this fantasy that the Soviet weapons were lower in range, guidance and accuracy!
Thankfully we never found out!
But then again it is still young days in the big picture!
P.S. I still ask myself if the USN did the right thing with phasing out the Tomcat the way in which it did and on the scale it did??
By: gunfighter8
- 15th March 2010 at 01:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-8 Crusader hard to land? There are several documented instances of the Crusader taking off and landing on a carrier with its wings in the folded position.
The thrust to weight ratios quoted for F-4, F-104 and Super Tiger are misleading because they use thrust at standard (sea level press and temp) conditions. as you gain height and speed, the more efficient multi shock intakes of the F-104 would give it a thrust advantage over the Super Tiger. Grumman was pleasantly surprised by the M2 capability of the two Super Tiger prototypes as they onlyexpected M1.4. See American Secret Projects: fighters and interceptors 1949 to 1975.
As far as I know, and I'll admit it was a special stripped version, no other aircraft from that era, neither F-4, Lightning and certainly not the Super Tiger could zoom climb to 104,000ft like the F-104. That should imply something about its T/W ratio and its wing.
Hi Migl, the crusader3 totally outperformed the F4 in initial evaluations at pax river, top speed was limited to 2.5 due to windscreen heating, fix was in works, Test pilots said it was still increasing mach at a rate that they felt would get it to 2.8-3.0! Crusader losses in the fleet due in a large part to speed/attitude control and lack of 2nd rear seater in the 3 , as well as F4 dual role concept, led the brass to buy the F4. Head to head the F8 would eat an F4 in 2 turns, the F8-3 was an unbelievable machine for the early 60,s. Many navy fighter jocks felt it was the best plane the navy never bought. But it was a pure fighter not a dual role dog..
By: ST-21
- 16th March 2010 at 01:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-8 Crusader hard to land? There are several documented instances of the Crusader taking off and landing on a carrier with its wings in the folded position.
Just noticed this post, sorry for the delay.
I am not aware of any case where an F-8 landed or especially took off from a carrier, I'd like to hear about this. There were a few cases where an F-8 did this from a land base, including one in Napoli in 1960, one in 1966 and another in 1967 from Da Nang, one in 1968 from Miramar, but from a carrier? On a carrier, not only would the pilot have to not notice and to ignore the deck crewman giving him the unfold signal, but everyone working around the aircraft, positioning it, attaching it to the cat and the 'shooter' would all have to not notice. Even then, because it wouldn't be going fast enough at the end of the stroke, the bird would probably go into the water. And landing on a carrier with wings up, Sheeesh! If by some miracle the F-8 survived the cat shot, and couldn't get the wings down, they'd either divert him to shore, or if not possible, have him eject alongside the ship. I can't imagine any Air Boss allowing an F-8 with wings up to try and trap.
The F-8, while a magnificent beast was a difficult aircraft and not one of the easier jets to bring aboard (F-4 was very good for its time). Here are some comparative statistics. F-4 had an overall accident rate of 20.17/100,00 hrs. F-8 rate was 46.70. Even more telling, here's a quote from RADM Paul Gilgrist, one of the most S H naval aviators of the modern era that appeared n Flight Journal:
"...the accident statistics of the Crusader in the Fleet was atrocious . . . the Navy bought 1266 Crusaders during those years and at the same time, experienced 1106 major Crusader accidents. In other words, some intrepid aviator or other crashed virtually every Crusader ever built!"
By: ST-21
- 16th March 2010 at 01:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Migl, the crusader3 totally outperformed the F4 in initial evaluations at pax river, top speed was limited to 2.5 due to windscreen heating, fix was in works, Test pilots said it was still increasing mach at a rate that they felt would get it to 2.8-3.0! Crusader losses in the fleet due in a large part to speed/attitude control and lack of 2nd rear seater in the 3 , as well as F4 dual role concept, led the brass to buy the F4. Head to head the F8 would eat an F4 in 2 turns, the F8-3 was an unbelievable machine for the early 60,s. Many navy fighter jocks felt it was the best plane the navy never bought. But it was a pure fighter not a dual role dog..
F-8U-III outperformed F-4 in most air superiority parameters (knowing what we know now, it probably would have topped out at M2.8 instead of 3). However, it might have been just as difficult around the boat as previous models, and that couldn't be countenanced. It is doubtful that lack of a 2nd seater contributed to that, especially since Navy F-4s did not have flight controls in the rear . But, F-4 was more versatile, could support a larger radar dish, had much lower workload, could carry a larger warload, etc. In the air superiority role it was "good enough", but its versatility was outstanding. If the Navy could have gotten both, they certainly would have, Crusader III was unquestionably the best fighter they never bought up to that time. However, since they only could afford one, they definitely made the right choice.
Think of it this way: While setting aside whatever your personal opinion of the War itself for a moment, ask yourself this: How would the US air effort in Vietnam have fared had the US had Crusader IIIs, instead of Phantoms?
By: MigL
- 17th March 2010 at 00:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're probably right about the carrier landings. I remember reading the pilot's account of the folded wing take-off/sortie/landing, but I didn't recall wether it was carrier or land-based. It never occurred to me that carrier deck crew would have noticed and the plane wouldn't have taken off, although you'd think the pilot would do a circle check before take-off.
Its still pretty impressive though, have any other folding wing planes accidentally repeated this feat?
By: ST-21
- 17th March 2010 at 18:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're probably right about the carrier landings. I remember reading the pilot's account of the folded wing take-off/sortie/landing, but I didn't recall wether it was carrier or land-based. It never occurred to me that carrier deck crew would have noticed and the plane wouldn't have taken off, although you'd think the pilot would do a circle check before take-off.
Its still pretty impressive though, have any other folding wing planes accidentally repeated this feat?
I am aware of no case where an F-8 operated from a carrier with its wings folded. Off the top of my head, I can't remember if an A-7 ever flew wings folded. The F-14 did have an emergency procedure for trapping with wings full aft, but even then the normal procedure would be to fly to a shore base if feasible. I can't remember off hand whether any F-14 trapped with full aft sweep.
If by "circle check", you mean looking all around, I don't know if the wings can be seen from the F-8 cockpit once the canopy is closed. However, even if they can, people aren't always 100% aware. After all, this happened at least five times. In any case, there are warning systems in the cockpit, and in all cases the pilots admitted they didn't really pay attention because of other things going on.
By: talltower
- 18th March 2010 at 13:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-8U-III outperformed F-4 in most air superiority parameters (knowing what we know now, it probably would have topped out at M2.8 instead of 3). However, it might have been just as difficult around the boat as previous models, and that couldn't be countenanced. It is doubtful that lack of a 2nd seater contributed to that, especially since Navy F-4s did not have flight controls in the rear . But, F-4 was more versatile, could support a larger radar dish, had much lower workload, could carry a larger warload, etc. In the air superiority role it was "good enough", but its versatility was outstanding. If the Navy could have gotten both, they certainly would have, Crusader III was unquestionably the best fighter they never bought up to that time. However, since they only could afford one, they definitely made the right choice.
Think of it this way: While setting aside whatever your personal opinion of the War itself for a moment, ask yourself this: How would the US air effort in Vietnam have fared had the US had Crusader IIIs, instead of Phantoms?
Crusaders were the better dogfighters than Phantoms, because they were gun-equipped with 4 Colt Mk 12 20mm cannons (Navy B and J model Phantoms were solely missile-equipped).
By: Sens
- 18th March 2010 at 13:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Crusaders were the better dogfighters than Phantoms, because they were gun-equipped with 4 Colt Mk 12 20mm cannons (Navy B and J model Phantoms were solely missile-equipped).
Wrong. They were not the better "dogfighter", they were just equipped with cannons too, which were more reliable at that time-scale.
From 1965-68 the F-8s downed 19 MiGs over Vietnam and the majority of that with AIM-9s.
In that period the F-4s downed 13 MiGs with AAMs, despite being used as strikers mainly.
The main MiG-killer were the F-105s, which could be claimed as versatile dogfighters hardly.
In short, that achievements were more related to the opportunities to run into MiGs than to prove some "dogfight capabilities" at first. ;)
By: Sens
- 18th March 2010 at 13:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The production of the F-8s did end in 1965, when the ones built saw modifications from 1966-70 to keep that going. Maybe it was one of the better designs from the 50s, but no longer worth to keep it in production after 1965, when it did reappear in some way as the subsonic A-7 fighter-bomber.
By: alfakilo
- 18th March 2010 at 14:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrong. They were not the better "dogfighter", they were just equipped with cannons too, which were more reliable at that time-scale.
Why is it then that the F-8 is credited with having the best kill ratio of any US fighter during that conflict?
If that doesn't sway you, how did you arrive at this opinion...because I can tell you this...it sure isn't the opinion of those of us who flew these aircraft.
The main MiG-killer were the F-105s, which could be claimed as versatile dogfighters hardly.
Since anyone can disprove that statement with a quick Google check of MiG kill numbers, what exactly did you mean by that?
By: Sens
- 18th March 2010 at 14:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why is it then that the F-8 is credited with having the best kill ratio of any US fighter during that conflict?
If that doesn't sway you, how did you arrive at this opinion...because I can tell you this...it sure isn't the opinion of those of us who flew these aircraft.
Since anyone can disprove that statement with a quick Google check of MiG kill numbers, what exactly did you mean by that?
The F-105D was credited with 25 MiG kills.
It is not about the exchange ratio in general, when the missions tasked could not be compared in general.
In the hindsight it does not make much sense to repeat the questionable claims of the single-pilot gunfighter community against the crews of the missile only fighters. In my former posts I did point to the limited number of arial encounters with MiGs over Vietnam at all.
How many MiGs were downed by F-8s over Vietnam in how many missions?!
Not related to any of that communities I am free to be critical to both.
Despite that I am still intrested in your google finds about that.
By: alfakilo
- 18th March 2010 at 16:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-105D was credited with 25 MiG kills.
And the F-4 was credited with far more. What's your point? You made the statement that the F-105 was "the main MiG killer". That statement is totally false.
In the hindsight it does not make much sense to repeat the questionable claims of the single-pilot gunfighter community against the crews of the missile only fighters.
When it comes to opinions, at least these pilots have actual experience in these aircraft.
You do not. So, for the second time, where does your opinion come from?
How many MiGs were downed by F-8s over Vietnam in how many missions?!
What's your point? Are you comparing MiG kills to number of sorties? If so, what does that prove? For those of us who flew missions in that war that took place outside North Vietnam (and therefore in areas where there was no MiG activity)...and that was the majority of the missions...what are you trying to say?
By: Sens
- 18th March 2010 at 17:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And the F-4 was credited with far more. What's your point? You made the statement that the F-105 was "the main MiG killer". That statement is totally false.
When it comes to opinions, at least these pilots have actual experience in these aircraft.
You do not. So, for the second time, where does your opinion come from?
What's your point? Are you comparing MiG kills to number of sorties? If so, what does that prove? For those of us who flew missions in that war that took place outside North Vietnam (and therefore in areas where there was no MiG activity)...and that was the majority of the missions...what are you trying to say?
No, the time scale of the 60s in mind. I am aware that the USAF claimed 137 MiG-kills by F-4s till the end of the Vietnam War in the 70s.
Whatever former fellows may claim about their beloved F-8s, we have to stick to the known facts. How many MiGs were claimed by F-8 pilots during the whole Vietnam War? How many missions were flown to achieve that?!
The F-105 drivers did run into MiGs more often in the 60s simply. Nothing more and nothing less.
The F-8s were of most use, when dodging the SAM-2 and ease the threat for the own attackers by that. Not as glamorous as the few fighter clashes more prominent in the hindsight.
By: ST-21
- 18th March 2010 at 18:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-8 did have the best win/loss ratio of the War. However it was not because it had guns or was the best "dogfighter" (BTW, the classic "dogfight" is pretty much the least effective tactic for getting kills, but that's another topic). It was because, except for very limited instances, air-to-air was all they did and all they trained for. When you can concentrate your training and proficiency and combat time on just that mission, you become very, very good...and these guys were very, very good. F-4 drivers had to divide their training and proficiency among all the multiple missions of which the F-4 was capable. Even so, the USN/USMC overall kill ratio was 5.42 in the F-4, not that far behind the 6.0 achieved by the F-8. Of course, the USN/USMC kill ratios were always better than USAF's, but then that is the natural order of things (says the ex-squid)
Note also that the F-8 got nearly four missile kills for every 20mm kill it achieved, and one of those credited to the gun was actually the result of finishing off an aircraft already damaged by the F-8's missile for which they didn't want to waste another missile.
As alluded to by another poster, the best gun killer was actually the F-105. That may seem surprising until you take into account that they often came in on the deck, where they were very fast. The MiGs would have to come in very close to try and track them, and at that altitude and speed much of the MiGs maneuvering advantage was lost.
My point about what if the US had had Crusader IIIs instead of the F-4 was that you'd end up with a probably superior air superiority aircraft, but incapable of doing those other things the F-4 did would have been done. Remember also, that in this scenario, not only would USN/USMC not have any F-4s, neither would USAF, and there's no indication they would have developed anything in its place.
Given they could only buy one or the other, USN unquestionably made the right choice.
By: alfakilo
- 18th March 2010 at 19:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, the time scale of the 60s in mind. I am aware that the USAF claimed 137 MiG-kills by F-4s till the end of the Vietnam War in the 70s.
Quit tap-dancing. Prior to the bombing halt in 1968, the number of USAF MiG kills stood at about 80 or more. Of those, about 25 belonged to F-105 pilots. Somehow, those numbers don't add up to the F-105 being the "main MiG killer".
Whatever former fellows may claim about their beloved F-8s, we have to stick to the known facts.
Good idea. So, why do you rely on personal opinion based on your total zero experience in the subject?
How many MiGs were claimed by F-8 pilots during the whole Vietnam War? How many missions were flown to achieve that?!
Are you trying to make a case for number of kills per sortie? Why don't you provide the answer? And then say why that's important.
For the other posters here, much of the jousting that went on in the military at that time about what was the "best" fighter was rooted in the friendly rivalry between single seat fighter pilots (F-104, F-105, F-8) and their two engine counterparts (F-4 pilots). Having flown both types, I can tell you that both sets of pilots were were pretty set in their ways and their attitudes had little to do with much besides boastfulness.
The F-105 drivers did run into MiGs more often in the 60s simply. Nothing more and nothing less.
That may or may not be true...and has zero to do with this discussion.
Are you ever going to say where you get your opinions from?
By: MadRat
- 18th March 2010 at 19:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We have to keep in mind, that in the cool air high up that IR seeker did work satisfactory only.
Falcons had the contact fuse and were an accurate missile, which made the available proximity fusing technology an extra complexity and unnecessary weight. The British Red Top used a more exotic ruby cone over their seeker and it - like the Falcon - was more sensitive than the uncooled-seekers on the Sidewinders. (The Isrealis used a similar ruby nose material for the Pythons.) The Red Top and Falcon could both pick out hot targets against the warm ground as a backdrop far better than the Sidewinder, so the altitude up high wasn't the advantage. Red Top and Falcon were both fused correctly for attacking high altitude and high speed targets whereas the Sidewinder had troubles with their passive fuses. The Sidewinders could have had more kills over S.E. Asia if the fuse worked more than 3/4'ers of the time. The U.S. early sidewinder proved so limited that NATO standardized around their own AIM-9B version that used coolant and an exotic nose. The USN picked up on the changes and opted for a cooled Sidewinder seeker, too. The difference between the cooled sidewinder and the Falcon was cost; the Sidewinder would stay cool for over 2 hours on one tank whereas the Falcon was about 60 seconds worth.
By: MadRat
- 18th March 2010 at 19:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-8 did have the best win/loss ratio of the War. However it was not because it had guns or was the best "dogfighter" (BTW, the classic "dogfight" is pretty much the least effective tactic for getting kills, but that's another topic). It was because, except for very limited instances, air-to-air was all they did and all they trained for.
My point about what if the US had had Crusader IIIs instead of the F-4 was that you'd end up with a probably superior air superiority aircraft, but incapable of doing those other things the F-4 did would have been done.
Which are two very good points. If the F-8s were in the hands of naval pilots it probably performs because of their approach at that time to air superiority training. When the F-15 first was in service they trained with USN F-4's in DACT and got their heads handed to them. It took the USAF pilot training school to change a lot of their approach to air warfare - not just air superiority - to make the F-15 actually worthwhile. Superior machine in the hands of inferior pilots.
By: alfakilo
- 18th March 2010 at 20:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Falcons had the contact fuse and were an accurate missile, which made the available proximity fusing technology an extra complexity and unnecessary weight.
The Falcon was roundly disliked in the F-4 community of the 60s...there was a good reason why we referred to it as the "Hughes Arrow"...and that was that it had to hit something in order for the warhead to explode...no prox fuze.
We had a funny situation happen at Soesterberg when we were still carrying the AIM-4 on our alert birds. The two alert jets did a routine training scramble, and as we often did, set up for practice intercepts on each other. The flight lead acted as the target, and his wingman ran a stern conversion intercept on him. The wingman rolled out at the lead's six to simulate a Fox 2 launch.
The only problem was that he had accidentally armed the Falcon, and so when he pushed the pickle button, off went the missile.
Before the wingman could get over his surprise, the Hughes Arrow homed in on the lead F-4 and went zooming right by, much to the consternation of the flight lead.
Since the wingman was doing a radar intercept, all of this was captured on the radar film...and what did that film show?
A perfect intercept. The firing indications looked like they had come right out of a Hughes manual. In the investigation, Hughes personnel were hard pressed to explain why this supposedly highly accurate missile could miss such a non-maneuvering target!!
Not long after, we converted to AIM-9s...funny how that happened!!
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 4th March 2010 at 18:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Red_Top
We have to keep in mind, that in the cool air high up that IR seeker did work satisfactory only.
The radar-variant still in need was not bought, because the RN got the F-4K with AIM-7s, which were later replaced by the Sky Flash AAM in RAF-service.
Posts: 719
By: Pioneer - 5th March 2010 at 02:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would categorically say no!
Nor was there any other one type of aircraft that the U.S Navy had that could claim this!
The fact is that to defend a carrier battle group, you need a integrate and layered air defence system. No matter how good you think your system is i.e the F-4 Phantom II or even the purpose designed and built mighty F-14 Tomcat!!!!
You will always get leakers through with a good and smart executed enemy!
Not even the Soviets were that dumb or over confident to think all they had to do was stand-off with Bear's, Badger's and Backfire's (not to mention their SSGN's) and ripple launch their massive and powerful ASM's.
One must remember the West in general had this fantasy that the Soviet weapons were lower in range, guidance and accuracy!
Thankfully we never found out!
But then again it is still young days in the big picture!
P.S. I still ask myself if the USN did the right thing with phasing out the Tomcat the way in which it did and on the scale it did??
Regards
Pioneer
Posts: 719
By: Pioneer - 5th March 2010 at 02:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Bager1968
How could I forget the Skyraider!
One of my all time favourite aircraft - well wash my mouth out and call me .......
Thanks also to Sen for your great responses to my questions!!
Regards
Pioneer
Posts: 3
By: gunfighter8 - 15th March 2010 at 01:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Migl, the crusader3 totally outperformed the F4 in initial evaluations at pax river, top speed was limited to 2.5 due to windscreen heating, fix was in works, Test pilots said it was still increasing mach at a rate that they felt would get it to 2.8-3.0! Crusader losses in the fleet due in a large part to speed/attitude control and lack of 2nd rear seater in the 3 , as well as F4 dual role concept, led the brass to buy the F4. Head to head the F8 would eat an F4 in 2 turns, the F8-3 was an unbelievable machine for the early 60,s. Many navy fighter jocks felt it was the best plane the navy never bought. But it was a pure fighter not a dual role dog..
Posts: 270
By: ST-21 - 16th March 2010 at 01:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just noticed this post, sorry for the delay.
I am not aware of any case where an F-8 landed or especially took off from a carrier, I'd like to hear about this. There were a few cases where an F-8 did this from a land base, including one in Napoli in 1960, one in 1966 and another in 1967 from Da Nang, one in 1968 from Miramar, but from a carrier? On a carrier, not only would the pilot have to not notice and to ignore the deck crewman giving him the unfold signal, but everyone working around the aircraft, positioning it, attaching it to the cat and the 'shooter' would all have to not notice. Even then, because it wouldn't be going fast enough at the end of the stroke, the bird would probably go into the water. And landing on a carrier with wings up, Sheeesh! If by some miracle the F-8 survived the cat shot, and couldn't get the wings down, they'd either divert him to shore, or if not possible, have him eject alongside the ship. I can't imagine any Air Boss allowing an F-8 with wings up to try and trap.
The F-8, while a magnificent beast was a difficult aircraft and not one of the easier jets to bring aboard (F-4 was very good for its time). Here are some comparative statistics. F-4 had an overall accident rate of 20.17/100,00 hrs. F-8 rate was 46.70. Even more telling, here's a quote from RADM Paul Gilgrist, one of the most S H naval aviators of the modern era that appeared n Flight Journal:
"...the accident statistics of the Crusader in the Fleet was atrocious . . . the Navy bought 1266 Crusaders during those years and at the same time, experienced 1106 major Crusader accidents. In other words, some intrepid aviator or other crashed virtually every Crusader ever built!"
Posts: 270
By: ST-21 - 16th March 2010 at 01:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-8U-III outperformed F-4 in most air superiority parameters (knowing what we know now, it probably would have topped out at M2.8 instead of 3). However, it might have been just as difficult around the boat as previous models, and that couldn't be countenanced. It is doubtful that lack of a 2nd seater contributed to that, especially since Navy F-4s did not have flight controls in the rear . But, F-4 was more versatile, could support a larger radar dish, had much lower workload, could carry a larger warload, etc. In the air superiority role it was "good enough", but its versatility was outstanding. If the Navy could have gotten both, they certainly would have, Crusader III was unquestionably the best fighter they never bought up to that time. However, since they only could afford one, they definitely made the right choice.
Think of it this way: While setting aside whatever your personal opinion of the War itself for a moment, ask yourself this: How would the US air effort in Vietnam have fared had the US had Crusader IIIs, instead of Phantoms?
Posts: 190
By: MigL - 17th March 2010 at 00:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're probably right about the carrier landings. I remember reading the pilot's account of the folded wing take-off/sortie/landing, but I didn't recall wether it was carrier or land-based. It never occurred to me that carrier deck crew would have noticed and the plane wouldn't have taken off, although you'd think the pilot would do a circle check before take-off.
Its still pretty impressive though, have any other folding wing planes accidentally repeated this feat?
Posts: 270
By: ST-21 - 17th March 2010 at 18:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am aware of no case where an F-8 operated from a carrier with its wings folded. Off the top of my head, I can't remember if an A-7 ever flew wings folded. The F-14 did have an emergency procedure for trapping with wings full aft, but even then the normal procedure would be to fly to a shore base if feasible. I can't remember off hand whether any F-14 trapped with full aft sweep.
If by "circle check", you mean looking all around, I don't know if the wings can be seen from the F-8 cockpit once the canopy is closed. However, even if they can, people aren't always 100% aware. After all, this happened at least five times. In any case, there are warning systems in the cockpit, and in all cases the pilots admitted they didn't really pay attention because of other things going on.
Posts: 493
By: talltower - 18th March 2010 at 13:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Crusaders were the better dogfighters than Phantoms, because they were gun-equipped with 4 Colt Mk 12 20mm cannons (Navy B and J model Phantoms were solely missile-equipped).
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 18th March 2010 at 13:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrong. They were not the better "dogfighter", they were just equipped with cannons too, which were more reliable at that time-scale.
From 1965-68 the F-8s downed 19 MiGs over Vietnam and the majority of that with AIM-9s.
In that period the F-4s downed 13 MiGs with AAMs, despite being used as strikers mainly.
The main MiG-killer were the F-105s, which could be claimed as versatile dogfighters hardly.
In short, that achievements were more related to the opportunities to run into MiGs than to prove some "dogfight capabilities" at first. ;)
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 18th March 2010 at 13:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The production of the F-8s did end in 1965, when the ones built saw modifications from 1966-70 to keep that going. Maybe it was one of the better designs from the 50s, but no longer worth to keep it in production after 1965, when it did reappear in some way as the subsonic A-7 fighter-bomber.
Posts: 523
By: alfakilo - 18th March 2010 at 14:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why is it then that the F-8 is credited with having the best kill ratio of any US fighter during that conflict?
If that doesn't sway you, how did you arrive at this opinion...because I can tell you this...it sure isn't the opinion of those of us who flew these aircraft.
Since anyone can disprove that statement with a quick Google check of MiG kill numbers, what exactly did you mean by that?
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 18th March 2010 at 14:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-105D was credited with 25 MiG kills.
It is not about the exchange ratio in general, when the missions tasked could not be compared in general.
In the hindsight it does not make much sense to repeat the questionable claims of the single-pilot gunfighter community against the crews of the missile only fighters. In my former posts I did point to the limited number of arial encounters with MiGs over Vietnam at all.
How many MiGs were downed by F-8s over Vietnam in how many missions?!
Not related to any of that communities I am free to be critical to both.
Despite that I am still intrested in your google finds about that.
Posts: 523
By: alfakilo - 18th March 2010 at 16:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And the F-4 was credited with far more. What's your point? You made the statement that the F-105 was "the main MiG killer". That statement is totally false.
When it comes to opinions, at least these pilots have actual experience in these aircraft.
You do not. So, for the second time, where does your opinion come from?
What's your point? Are you comparing MiG kills to number of sorties? If so, what does that prove? For those of us who flew missions in that war that took place outside North Vietnam (and therefore in areas where there was no MiG activity)...and that was the majority of the missions...what are you trying to say?
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 18th March 2010 at 17:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, the time scale of the 60s in mind. I am aware that the USAF claimed 137 MiG-kills by F-4s till the end of the Vietnam War in the 70s.
Whatever former fellows may claim about their beloved F-8s, we have to stick to the known facts. How many MiGs were claimed by F-8 pilots during the whole Vietnam War? How many missions were flown to achieve that?!
The F-105 drivers did run into MiGs more often in the 60s simply. Nothing more and nothing less.
The F-8s were of most use, when dodging the SAM-2 and ease the threat for the own attackers by that. Not as glamorous as the few fighter clashes more prominent in the hindsight.
Posts: 270
By: ST-21 - 18th March 2010 at 18:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-8 did have the best win/loss ratio of the War. However it was not because it had guns or was the best "dogfighter" (BTW, the classic "dogfight" is pretty much the least effective tactic for getting kills, but that's another topic). It was because, except for very limited instances, air-to-air was all they did and all they trained for. When you can concentrate your training and proficiency and combat time on just that mission, you become very, very good...and these guys were very, very good. F-4 drivers had to divide their training and proficiency among all the multiple missions of which the F-4 was capable. Even so, the USN/USMC overall kill ratio was 5.42 in the F-4, not that far behind the 6.0 achieved by the F-8. Of course, the USN/USMC kill ratios were always better than USAF's, but then that is the natural order of things (says the ex-squid)
Note also that the F-8 got nearly four missile kills for every 20mm kill it achieved, and one of those credited to the gun was actually the result of finishing off an aircraft already damaged by the F-8's missile for which they didn't want to waste another missile.
As alluded to by another poster, the best gun killer was actually the F-105. That may seem surprising until you take into account that they often came in on the deck, where they were very fast. The MiGs would have to come in very close to try and track them, and at that altitude and speed much of the MiGs maneuvering advantage was lost.
My point about what if the US had had Crusader IIIs instead of the F-4 was that you'd end up with a probably superior air superiority aircraft, but incapable of doing those other things the F-4 did would have been done. Remember also, that in this scenario, not only would USN/USMC not have any F-4s, neither would USAF, and there's no indication they would have developed anything in its place.
Given they could only buy one or the other, USN unquestionably made the right choice.
Posts: 523
By: alfakilo - 18th March 2010 at 19:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quit tap-dancing. Prior to the bombing halt in 1968, the number of USAF MiG kills stood at about 80 or more. Of those, about 25 belonged to F-105 pilots. Somehow, those numbers don't add up to the F-105 being the "main MiG killer".
Good idea. So, why do you rely on personal opinion based on your total zero experience in the subject?
Are you trying to make a case for number of kills per sortie? Why don't you provide the answer? And then say why that's important.
For the other posters here, much of the jousting that went on in the military at that time about what was the "best" fighter was rooted in the friendly rivalry between single seat fighter pilots (F-104, F-105, F-8) and their two engine counterparts (F-4 pilots). Having flown both types, I can tell you that both sets of pilots were were pretty set in their ways and their attitudes had little to do with much besides boastfulness.
That may or may not be true...and has zero to do with this discussion.
Are you ever going to say where you get your opinions from?
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 18th March 2010 at 19:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Falcons had the contact fuse and were an accurate missile, which made the available proximity fusing technology an extra complexity and unnecessary weight. The British Red Top used a more exotic ruby cone over their seeker and it - like the Falcon - was more sensitive than the uncooled-seekers on the Sidewinders. (The Isrealis used a similar ruby nose material for the Pythons.) The Red Top and Falcon could both pick out hot targets against the warm ground as a backdrop far better than the Sidewinder, so the altitude up high wasn't the advantage. Red Top and Falcon were both fused correctly for attacking high altitude and high speed targets whereas the Sidewinder had troubles with their passive fuses. The Sidewinders could have had more kills over S.E. Asia if the fuse worked more than 3/4'ers of the time. The U.S. early sidewinder proved so limited that NATO standardized around their own AIM-9B version that used coolant and an exotic nose. The USN picked up on the changes and opted for a cooled Sidewinder seeker, too. The difference between the cooled sidewinder and the Falcon was cost; the Sidewinder would stay cool for over 2 hours on one tank whereas the Falcon was about 60 seconds worth.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 18th March 2010 at 19:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which are two very good points. If the F-8s were in the hands of naval pilots it probably performs because of their approach at that time to air superiority training. When the F-15 first was in service they trained with USN F-4's in DACT and got their heads handed to them. It took the USAF pilot training school to change a lot of their approach to air warfare - not just air superiority - to make the F-15 actually worthwhile. Superior machine in the hands of inferior pilots.
Posts: 523
By: alfakilo - 18th March 2010 at 20:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Falcon was roundly disliked in the F-4 community of the 60s...there was a good reason why we referred to it as the "Hughes Arrow"...and that was that it had to hit something in order for the warhead to explode...no prox fuze.
We had a funny situation happen at Soesterberg when we were still carrying the AIM-4 on our alert birds. The two alert jets did a routine training scramble, and as we often did, set up for practice intercepts on each other. The flight lead acted as the target, and his wingman ran a stern conversion intercept on him. The wingman rolled out at the lead's six to simulate a Fox 2 launch.
The only problem was that he had accidentally armed the Falcon, and so when he pushed the pickle button, off went the missile.
Before the wingman could get over his surprise, the Hughes Arrow homed in on the lead F-4 and went zooming right by, much to the consternation of the flight lead.
Since the wingman was doing a radar intercept, all of this was captured on the radar film...and what did that film show?
A perfect intercept. The firing indications looked like they had come right out of a Hughes manual. In the investigation, Hughes personnel were hard pressed to explain why this supposedly highly accurate missile could miss such a non-maneuvering target!!
Not long after, we converted to AIM-9s...funny how that happened!!