Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

I'm a newbie, and I hope that this is the right segment, but I have a few
thoughts about the F4s in Vietnam.

I was in Thailand (Ubon ) 66-67 as an F4 Nav guy, but we didn't get a lot of the big picture.

Anyway, if you watch the History channel and dogfights, you'd be convinced that the Phantom was a real dog because it didn't have guns.

First, this is not entirely accurate. They hung gatlings on the centerlines -- for a lot of configurations. I'm not sure about the MIG CAP missions. The reason that I know is that we set the frag ( IFF mode 2 ) in the nose wheel well -- and the gatling was lined up with a very personal area. This was with weapons hammering on various things while electrical and hydaulic power was present ( this was not supposed to be the case - but it was)

Also, the F4Es and beyond had integral gatlings. (this was after my tour)

But besides that, the Ubon F4s seemed to do OK against the Migs. The famous Robin Olds Mig slaughter was accomplished by suckering them with
F105s. When the Migs scrambled they found only Phantoms. The Phantom was not what they wanted to see. I was, unfortunately, TDY to the hospital at the time, but I believe that they dropped 21 Migs that day.

So, I watched this dogfight episode. The crew -- first Vietnam aces, I think, was coming home, and decided to play chicken with a Mig 17. Apparently they forgot that he had guns!.

They then ran through a scenario, in which the pilot admitted to making 3 major league errors in his approach. Basically, he seemed to allow the Mig
to get behind him. However, when the Mig made ONE mistake, he smoked him.

This gets to my point. The Mig was lighter and had guns. But, the F4 was rugged, and he could use his extra power to disengage and make another try. ( He probably could have easily just left). On the other hand, the manuverable Mig apparently didn't have hydraulic assist to the controls, so the F4 was able to manuver better in some situations. Oh, and they suspected that the Mig pilot was some famous colnel that had been causing a lot of problems.

So, yes the 4 could have used guns -- and it got them. But, I don't think that it was the dog that some seem to claim that it was. I don't know how it would have fared against the more best Migs of the era with Russian pilots, but it had it's points.

I will say that my favorite F4 feature was the built in ladder. It was apparently rated as supersonic, but the pilot could easily tell if it was up -- the top poked into the cockpit!

Comments welcomed,

ford2go

F-16.net Sponsor

At first the biggest air combat weakness with the Phantom in Nam was the lack of training. Thankfully some pilots like Olds were experienced at ACM before the brass had decided that dogfights were a thing of the past. New crew training programs certainly improved the Phantoms performance at the end of the war when crews flew the jets based on the Phantoms's strengths and the MiG's weaknesses.

The Phantom's second major shortcoming was the horrible performance of the missiles of the day. If the Phantom's had been armed with today's AMRAAMs and AIM-9s which have finally lived up to the vision of the original missile only Phantom we know the kill ratio would have been higher.

The F-4 was an extremely effective combat weapon that pioneered today's electronic air warfare.

After the initial problems in Nam, the USAF and the USN had different solutions to the problems. The USAF mainly made technical changes to the phantom and largely ignored pilot tactics training. The USN made minor modifications but mostly changed their pilot training doctrine with the advent of “Top gun”. The success of the navy’s program was measured by the number of navy kills and aces- such as Cunningham.

The F-4 had a huge advantage as it had a much more powerful radar- that had a range of almost 70 km (43.5 miles). Even though sparrows and sidewinders of the day were unreliable, they provided long range hitting power. If it worked, the sparrow had a range of 26km (16miles) and at lower altitude 7km (4.3 miles).

In 1966 47 us ac were shot down to the loss of 7 Mig-17s and 5 Mig-21s. Mikoyan’s investigators state that between 1966 and 1970, there was a 3:1 kill ratio in favor of the NVAF. By 1972, the US forces had just over 1200 aircraft. The NVAF strength in September 1972 was 187 AC and only 71 were serviceable. Out of these, only 31 were Mig-21s and the rest Mig-17s. After Linebacker 2, the NVAF had to use Mi-6 transports to airlift Mig-21s to various STOL airfields and use rocket assisted take offs to get into the air.

The migs had the advantage in a turning fight, but the numbers of US ac, radar tech, and low numbers of NVAF migs were a disadvantage.

Another interesting scenario was the Iran-Iraq war. Some of the most amazing F-4 missions were flown by Iranian pilots against Iraq in the conflict. This too after they had been jailed by their own government.

I don't want to dispute your figures, but I was in Ubon Thailand in 66-67.

I was TDY and didn't get to see it, but there was a setup when the F4s took out 21 Migs in one day. It's been featured on the History channel.

We lost a lot of F-4s to AA fire and SAMS, but I'm not sure that Migs were
a major factor. The F105s didn't fare nearly as well, but I think that the Phantom did all right.

ford2go

Hm, I was TDY to experience Vietnam firsthand(wasn't even born while it was occurring).If the setup you are referring to is "operation bolo", the figures were 7 migs confirmed with two more probables. If it is another operation please explain which one Smile

Bolo was the operation designed by Col.Robin Olds, where F4s disguised themselves as vulnerable f-105s. The ruse worked and the NVAF ended up grounding their migs for months until they rethought their tactics.

The migs were a major factor- especially in the earlier phases of the air wars. Although they were not destroying US ac left or right, their main mission was to jump US strike ac and make them jettison their stores before they reached their target. Because of the numerical and technological superiority of US ac, the migs had to hit and run formations at close ranges. This also highlighted the shortcomings of not placing an internal gun on the phantom. The migs were enough of a priority that in Linebacker 2, the opening phases were almost solely concentrated on Mig airfields.

Again, I did not experience this myself so what I state might be distorted or inaccurate-

regards,

Salute!

Anytime now, Snake will jump in here, as he bagged a Mig after USAF adopted better tactics and training as the USN had done.

***********

Don't put much faith in those "range" numbers for the various aircraft radars.

I'll guarantee you that the Double Ugly radar could see medium size tgts 50-60 miles, maybe 80 miles away. Smaller tgts a different matter, but still as good or better than the F-106 and F-101 (that I flew). It's a lot due to RCS, and ya gotta get really low numbers there to be serious, as the detection range has several other factors to consider.

Same for the missile ranges. Aspect angle, tgt/launch jet maneuvering, etc.

later,

Snakes Up!!!!!!!

To put it in proper phrasing you guys are trying to put 10 pounds into a 5 pound bag by capsulizing a number of different aspects of the double ugly into one conclusion with not too accurate facts. However, follow on postings did try to clear up the confusion. The easy ones first:

Operation Bolo downed 7 of the then available 21 MIG 21's in the NVAF at that time. All of the F-4's were C models and 4 of the 21's were downed with the Sparrow (AIM-7) while the remaining 3 were downed with Sidewinders (AIM-9) no guns were employed on that flight because of the drag that they would incur, they had not been boresighted to the degree Robin wanted and needed to make his strike successful, and they couldn't jettison them like that could the centerline tank.

Next, and here a bit of admiration for the old bird may sneak in, she was a damn good airplane for its time. Yes she was a hand full when she was fully loaded with everything but the kitchen sink, but when you cleaned the wings and centerline of everything but the inboard pylons she could catch any of the MIGS the NVAF had in their inventory at the time. THe only thing that could outrun it was a 105 or a 111 (at times). All you had to do to get all that smash was kick off the stores and, at the same time unload and kick in full burners for a count of 4 and you'd get thrown back in the seat. In maneuvering you always worked towards the advantages of the bird by keeping above corner velocity, don't get into a low-slow turning fight , and use the vertical to your advantage. Defensively, keep the adversary in front of your wing line or extend or disengage to re-enter the fight on your terms. Also use your enemies aircraft weak spots against him. None of the MIGS had Hydraulic assist to their flight control systems so you could out muscle him here at low altitude (low and fast), try to keep in the MIGs blind spot (the glare shield in the top of the 21 canopy), and work him in the vertical. She was a very formidable weapons system in the right hands. However, the older guys from Korea who flew the nimble F-86 would have found her to be more of a truck as she could lose energy quickly in a turning fight if you weren't watching it (by feel) closely.

The Gun (SUU-16 or 23) hung on the centerline, the only place you could hang it was never a accurate weapon. With both guns, it couldn't be accurately boresighted because of G loading, outside wind pressures, etc, that could move the gun enough to make its marriage to the sight impossible. Crews en route to the target would frequently test fire the gun en route to the target and then with a grease pencil mark on the sighting glass where the bullets were actually going. Besides that the weight of the gun and the ammo caused such drag that it reduced the maneuverability of the bird.

In an Air to air engagement you can make a thousand errors that the enemy either doesn't see or take advantage of. Remember that these fights take place in a 1000 to 1200 MPH arena with ranges opening and closing in a heart beat. Conversely, It only takes one right decision to come out the winner.

There were a number of weakness's with the way we fought that war. Yes training was one of them, so were inadequate missiles, the absurd rules of engagement and target listing we had to operate under, then the lack of foresight of putting a gun in the early versions of the F-4 because the force was run by WWII Generals who thought that dogfighting was a thing of the past with the advent of missiles. But we learned over time and dead bodies how to counter a number of these handicaps and went on to win. THe only saving grace here is the guys that were there and did learn were the same guys who later became Generals and fought the Gulf wars the right way.

Ford2go -- I've gone back through the complete Air Force kill record between 1965 and 1973 and can't find anywhere that 21 MIG 21's were downed in the same day. Nor do I remember the History Channel ever saying that -- and I've followed all the Nam episodes closely to say hi to old friends.

You got to remember that the Thuds had the lion's share of Air to air, air-to-ground, and Wild Weasel missions in the early years of the war and that cost them dearly, over half of the total production of 105's ever built. And garbaged up with all sorts of external stores their major advantage -- speed -- was denied to them. When the 4's finally arrived some of their duties were transferred over and their lose's went down somewhat. They still had the toughest mission out there though and that was the Wild Weasel roles where they purposely put themselves in Harms way to protect the strike forces and did a helluva job doing it. Don't ever sell those guys short.

And throughout all the Hype of what great airplanes the MIG's were -- and they were good their drivers used those great little airplanes to their maximum advantage. Instead of getting the F-4 into a turning , screaming, groping, knuckle busting Dogfight that would use hit and run tactics to preserve their numbers and pilots. But they didn't and this tells me that one the NVAF didn't give them a whole bunch of ACM training to see them through a serious dogfight (with some exceptions and great pilots) or as I say wanted to preserve their dwindling fleet. Conversely, when we found that training in DACT was lacking we attacked it and then the NVAF in a manner that they could not recover from.

The conclusion she may have been a handful to fly if you didn't know her and her capabilities. But in the right hands she was an unforgiving warrior with big wide shoulders. And between 1968 and 1972 all the MIG's shot down were by the F-4 with the exception of 2 that were shot down by B-52 gunners. During that time the thing that the MIG pilots feared the most was looking into their rear view mirrors and seeing this big ugly bend and twisted double ugly with shark teeth and eyes coming at him at the speed of light hosing off a 9.

It happened that way ---moving west!!!!

Snake

Gums and Snake,

By no means am I discounting the phantom. Aside from all of your other points, it had the advantage of superior thrust (to migs). This would allow it to engage and disengage at will- thus controlling the dogfight. I think we can all agree that the Phantom has a great track record. In the hands of the Israelis, they dropped Arab MIGs like flies. Also was great in the Iran-Iraq war- although lack of spares was a problem. It was considered an amazing aircraft when it first appeared and even decades later we have Luftwaffe ICE phantoms that can pack a punch, even in modern BVR combat. The NVAF's biggest problem was in replacing their initial pilots in attrition. (speaking of NVA pilots, any thoughts on “Col.Tomb”)?

The SUU/16-22 gun pod had the disadvantages you mentioned - I wish they had installed an internal gun in the early models. I remember watching a documentary where a Pilot was arguing with a high ranked general for internal cannon. The Generals in the Pentagon scoffed and stated that guns were a thing of the past- "all that mattered was getting to a high altitude and launching a missile". The French, when they initially offered the Mirage to the Israelis, did not think an internal cannon armament was needed. On the insistence of the Israelis, internal cannon were provided. The Israelis also faced the problems you mentioned with air-air missiles of that generation. Tracking and target acquisition was just not what one would consider reliable. The Israelis referred to their Shafrir-2 aams as "bidongs" or air tanks because of their tendency to just drop away from the target after launch.

I got the whole “USN changed pilot tactics, while the USAF made the technical changes” idea from a documentary on the military channel. Like I said earlier, glad to discuss these ideas with people who actually experienced it. Makes for an accurate method of clarification. Appreciate all the input.

Go to the History Channel, "<a href="http://boards.historychannel.com/category.jspa?categoryID=800000014">Dogfights, discuss the show</a>, under Dogfights go to page 7 or 8 to the topic "<A href="http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700004541&tstart=90&mod=1187648242695">Randy Cunningham vs. Col. Tomb</a>", click on and enjoy.

Snake

All right snakes, gums, and whoever else knows what they're talking about.

The news I got when I got back from the PI was that the operation now known as bolo had dropped 21 Migs -- guess I was wrong.

I still dispute some of the Mig vs Phantom claims made by the Vietnamese. I think that they claimed a lot that were actually done in by SAMS or AA.
And some that were not done in at all.

I was a simple NAV avionics guy in Ubon, and I didn't really get all of the straight poop. But, from what I could tell, the Phantom drivers weren't too afraid of the Migs,

Snake-1 made the comment that the gatling wasn't too good in combat. Too bad. I often had to set the 'frag' (mode 2 IFF codes) before each flight.

Wasn't much fun to see that big cannon pointed at your privates -- the IFF was located in the nose wheel well. The worst time I remember was when weapons was loading it ( using hammers) while electric and hydraulic power were all running. We were told that weapons activities were to be conducted on an unpowered aircraft -- and not with hammers! All right, they didn't have hanners, but they were banging with something!

ford2go

If you guys haven't already (which I'm sure you have), this season of Dogfights has an episode on gun kills of Vietnam including gun kills with the SUU-16/22 by F-4 drivers. One of the best episodes yet.

ford2go - could it be possible you misinterpreted 'MiG-21s' as "21 Migs"? as it seems those were the only type shot down during Operation Bolo.

ford2go wrote:

The worst time I remember was when weapons was loading it ( using hammers) while electric and hydraulic power were all running. We were told that weapons activities were to be conducted on an unpowered aircraft -- and not with hammers! All right, they didn't have hanners, but they were banging with something!

ford2go

No we were not using hammers, that sound most likely was the links separating from the rounds as they dropped back into the 20MM can as we hand cranked them into the ammo drum. We could work on the pods so long as the firing lead was disconnected, or in the case of a quick turn we used AC hydraulics and installed the safety pin, which cut off electrical power to the firing pins.
We used to get a kick out of scarring the crap out of other shops when they were never sure what we were doing. It's a weapons thing.
Anyway the guns have not changed much, we still use the safety pins and we still hand crank rounds on the F-16, (when the ALS is broke as usual), but I do miss the sight of those awesome bent wings and the smell of JP 4 in the air!

I agree...I miss the old girl myself, when loaded for Bear, she was amazing to behold and a real pain to fix but many of us still love the old girl.

Many good and bad memories for us all....a few of mine are now posted

A few more F4 Photos (and stuff I have at my office)...most I have are slides I have not converted into prints yet - sorry

ACMIguy

Thanks for the reassurance that I was in no danger. I'll still say that it gives you pause to see weapons working on that Vulcan -- while it's pointed right at your privates! Then, likely as not, I'd bang my head on a sidewinder fin on the way out of the nose wheel well.

I have to say that I enjoyed a lot of those times -- of course, we were far removed from the real action. But, there was something awesome about the
big warbirds all loaded up and ready for action. Probably a lot scarier if you had to drive one of them.

Thanks for all the comments. It's been a real trip down memory lane.

ford2go

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

F4s in Nam