Forum: Air Power

It is my understanding that every time our fighter pilots -in their F-4's- saw a Mig-17 during the Vietnam Air War they slowed down their jets so that they could equal the Migs speed and hence, managed to get into a favorable firing position; by the time they were in the Migs speed arena the soviets jet maneuverability did the rest.

Ok, is my understanding correct?

I ask because it still strikes me, the fact that this inferior jet caused so much trouble to our more advanced fighters.

Any thoughts???

F-16.net Sponsor

There are several background factors to keep in mind when considering the engagements of the two aircraft that you mention in this theater.

1) The F-4 is an all-weather, multi-role aircraft built for air2air, air2ground, mid-air refueling for very long strike range two seater with sophisticated radio and radar suites where the Mig-17 is just about the opposite in every way. It was not equipped for use in air to ground role in that theater and ponderous in night operations but, it was well equipped for hit and run attacks.

2) The Mig-17 operated very close to their airbases and always under the direct control of a sophisticated ground control intercepts command from take off to landing. US air forces were always far from 'home' when engaging Mig-17s and rarely had the fuel to go hunting for long. The Mig-17 mission was always greatly simplified by virtue of the fact that they were always in the interceptor role, and the enemy was always coming to them, several times a day. The vast majority of Mig-17 kill victoms had their air2ground missions on their mind when engaged by the Mig-17.

3) Sadly for all US air forces (not just units operating F-4s) the training programs for aircrews, weapons they were supplied with and the air combat doctrines that they employed were not well tested under operating conditions that included motivated opponents. No amount of bravery could overcome the deep seeded planning shortcomings that were exposed at great cost in men and material. US combat planning had tended to solve every new problem related to strike missions with an ever growing list of specialized aircraft types. By the time of the Vietnam war, an enormous quantity of aircraft were required to placed in harms way over a target area accomplish even small strikes and few of those aircraft and their aircrews were trained and capable of handling a flight of migs streaking through their formations.

4) When you consider the quantity of aircraft that were lost to Migs of all kinds during the Vietnam war, you have to keep in mind and contrast that figure against the sheer quantity of US air combat sorties. Mig-17s were never effective in deterring attacks on targets in North Vietnam or anywhere in the theater. To be sure Migs complicated planning and forced larger numbers of air patrol aircraft to accompany strike missions but to my knowledge, no mission was ever scrubbed because the US feared Migs. The Migs just weren’t that big of a factor.

There was a lot of opposition to providing USAF pilots with realistic DACT training because of fear of training accidents. I'm deadly serious. The USN didn't have this issue to the same degree.

GCI provided SA superiority to the defenders. Probably the most important factor.

shingen wrote:

GCI provided SA superiority to the defenders. Probably the most important factor.

I'm decently familiar with VPAF GCI tactics when it came to the MiG-21, and there was no SA on the part of the pilot. He was just vectored in to fire his missiles.

On the MiG-17 side of things, however, I have no idea. I do know that EC-121s (COLLEGE EYE) and Navy radar picket destroyers (RED CROWN) were supporting strike packages into Pack VI, which is where the MiGs were.

This has been discussed here before, and I learned a bit from those discussions.

1. The F4 was to be an all missile fighter -- unfortunately, the missiles weren't quite as effective as they should have been at the time.
2. The early F4s had a centerline mounted gatling ( it was eventually integrated into the later models). Apparently this was not a great concept. It would sway as the aircraft manuvered hampering it's accuracy.
(Side note, I was in Ubon Thailand in 66-67 and we had to set the IFF mode 2 codes in the nose wheel well area. If there was a centerline gatling, it was aimed right at your err 'privates'. Not a comforting feeling, especially if weapons was banging away at it )
3. Top Gun was established in that era because it was found that US pilots were not all up to combat.
4. Rules of engagement were somewhat restrictive.
5. The Vietnamese claimed a lot of Mig 'kills'. A fair number of these were quite probably due to antiaircraft weapons.

As I said, I was at Ubon at the time. Our Phantoms ( or Rhinos as they seem to call them now) flew Mig Cap for the Thuds during the day, and bombed all night. I think that they did OK. I always liked them.

Forum: Air Power

About the Mig-17