Heatblur F-4 Phantom

[Harlikwin]

On 9/28/2021 at 4:57 PM, TLTeo said:

Uuuuh there's supposed to be a huge difference between the MLA and MLD though, because one had the extra strake thingies near the intakes and the other didn't. I also find it highly unlikely that a single airframe could go from being more or less like an F-4, to being comparable to the Viper, with just some relatively minor updates. I wouldn't be surprised it was true in terms of e.g. climb, acceleration, etc, but turning performance? No way.

 

So, the 23 had 3-4 different wing types, one affectionately known as "suicide wings", several engine types, and several different radars. Basically the difference between the early MS (the terrible export version) and the later MLA and MLD is immense, and that is an understatement. The later MLA/MLD had something like 50% more thrust than the MS, and they were actually significantly lighter like over a ton IIRC. The critical AOA angles were roughly doubled IIRC from the MS to the MLD (like 13deg AOA to like 30+ for the MLD) as were sustainable G loads. The 23MLD was basically a totally different plane than the MS. They "looked" similar but that was about it, the MLA was mostly a MLD with slightly fewer aero refinements and a slightly older radar. 23MLD's could hang with mig29's and beat them in exercises early on when more skilled 23 pilots "schooled" mig29 pilots. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Harlikwin

[TLTeo]

5 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

So, the 23 had 3 different wing types, one affectionately known as "suicide wings", several engine types, and several different radars. Basically the difference between the early MS (the terrible export version) and the later MLA and MLD is immense, and that is an understatement. The later MLA/MLD had something like 50% more thrust than the MS, and they were actually significantly lighter like over a ton IIRC. The critical AOA angles were roughly doubled IIRC from the MS to the MLD (like 13deg AOA to like 30+ for the MLD) as were sustainable G loads. The 23MLD was basically a totally different plane than the MS. They "looked" similar but that was about it, the MLA was mostly a MLD with slightly fewer aero refinements and a slightly older radar. 23MLD's could hang with mig29's and beat them in exercises early on when more skilled 23 pilots "schooled" mig29 pilots. 

 

I am well aware. What I'm saying is, the performance posted in the link is from an ML, which is reasonably close to an MLA, NOT an MS. That ML, close to an MLA, way better than an MS, performs similarly to a Phantom. Again, I find it highly unlikely that some relatively minor aero refinements (because as you pointed out, the wings had already been updated, the engine had already been improved, and the airframe had already been lightened by the time the ML/MLA came out) would take you from that to a Viper's turning performance.

Edited September 28, 2021 by TLTeo

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

 

I am well aware. What I'm saying is, the performance posted in the link is from an ML, which is reasonably close to an MLA, NOT an MS. That ML, close to an MLA, way better than an MS, performs similarly to a Phantom. Again, I find it highly unlikely that some relatively minor aero refinements (because as you pointed out, the wings had already been updated, the engine had already been improved, and the airframe had already been lightened by the time the ML/MLA came out) would take you from that to a Viper's turning performance.

 

 

The MLD had additional vortex generators that enabled it operate at even higher AOA regimes. I forget if it also had a further uprated engine. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Harlikwin

[TLTeo]

Again, well aware, I just don't see how that turns a Phantom into a Viper. It's not like the Mirage 3 magically became a Viper when the later variants got strakes, canards or J79s for example...

[Harlikwin]

On 9/28/2021 at 6:03 PM, TLTeo said:

Again, well aware, I just don't see how that turns a Phantom into a Viper. It's not like the Mirage 3 magically became a Viper when the later variants got strakes, canards or J79s for example...

 

They didn't start off as bad? Plus VG is a thing. I mean the MLD wasn't exactly a viper it was just the most refined variant, and the soviets and israelis though it was in the ballpark of a 16A in terms of maneuverability. 

 

I mean the F4 got a decent bit more maneuverable over its lifetime too. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Harlikwin

[captain_dalan]

23 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

They didn't start off as bad? Plus VG is a thing. I mean the MLD wasn't exactly a viper it was just the most refined variant, and the soviets though it was in the ballpark of a 16A in terms of maneuverability. 

 

The Soviets thought many things. Not all of them were correct. 

[Harlikwin]

51 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

The Soviets thought many things. Not all of them were correct. 

 

I mean the KGB probably knew more about the viper than the USAF...

 

[captain_dalan]

13 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean the KGB probably knew more about the viper than the USAF...

 

Or did they? The Soviets didn't have direct access to an early Viper. NATO did have access to various 23's though. And people who flew them or flew against them, had interesting things to say about them 

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, captain_dalan said:

Or did they? The Soviets didn't have direct access to an early Viper. NATO did have access to various 23's though. And people who flew them or flew against them, had interesting things to say about them 

 

NATO had access to the earliest and worst model in terms of Aero and Sensors, and everything else. Whatever conclusions were drawn weren't really applicable to the later models. 

 

KGB probably knew what Pierre Sprey had for breakfast each morning. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Harlikwin

[TLTeo]

Yeeeeaah no? The (clean) A model Viper can still pull 19 deg/s STR at 50000 ft. From the above, the ML model does about 14. There is no magic vortex generator or aero bit you can happily stick on a plan that will increase your STR by 5 deg/s.

 

Could some late Mig-23 ML type thing go ahead against Vipers and come out decently? Sure, it has plenty of other advantages - BVR missiles for one, possibly aircraft numbers, possibly acceleration and climb performance. That's likely what the Soviet would have meant by "roughly equal to a Viper". But could it easily out turn a Viper, any Viper, in a 1v1 fight? Hell no.

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, TLTeo said:

Yeeeeaah no? The (clean) A model Viper can still pull 19 deg/s STR at 50000 ft. From the above, the ML model does about 14. There is no magic vortex generator or aero bit you can happily stick on a plan that will increase your STR by 5 deg/s.

 

Could some late Mig-23 ML type thing go ahead against Vipers and come out decently? Sure, it has plenty of other advantages - BVR missiles for one, possibly aircraft numbers, possibly acceleration and climb performance. That's likely what the Soviet would have meant by "roughly equal to a Viper". But could it easily out turn a Viper, any Viper, in a 1v1 fight? Hell no.

 

That doc is wrong. At least according to Overstratos, who has the actual mig23 charts.

[F-2]

16 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean the KGB probably knew more about the viper than the USAF...

 

I can't speak for the Tornado but if you compare Tsagi's estimates on the F-15 and F-16a to actual NASA data they wildly underestimated the performance of  both airframes. As for the MLD, Airforces monthly October 2003 supposedly has MLD EM charts from the manual published. these are available on Ebay if anyone wanted to have an answer to the issue.

TsAGI SU27文字部分高清版.pdf

[captain_dalan]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

NATO had access to the earliest and worst model in terms of Aero and Sensors, and everything else. Whatever conclusions were drawn weren't really applicable to the later models. 

 

KGB probably knew what Pierre Sprey had for breakfast each morning. 

 

Early Vipers where pure rocketships performance wise. They would leave in the dust the DCS Viper. 

On the other hand, NATO had access to at least ML and BN Floggers and those were considered to be 'worse then an F-111'. I'm ready to take that as hyperbole, but it doesn't bode well for 23. They were never considered a WVR threat in the west. Could or would aerodynamic changes and new engines help the issue? Yeah. It would make a "death coffin with departure from hell properties" a half decent plane.  Will it make them a match for block 5-15 F-16A? It's within your rights to chose to believe so, but don't expect to be taken seriosuly.

BUT (and there's always a but), if by outperform you (or the author) mean pure dash, especially low level, i'm inclined to believe you. From all accounts they were some of the fastest things down low. Possibly even higher. 

[Airhunter]

Why are we talking about the Mig-23 here? 

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, captain_dalan said:

Early Vipers where pure rocketships performance wise. They would leave in the dust the DCS Viper. 

On the other hand, NATO had access to at least ML and BN Floggers and those were considered to be 'worse then an F-111'. I'm ready to take that as hyperbole, but it doesn't bode well for 23. They were never considered a WVR threat in the west. Could or would aerodynamic changes and new engines help the issue? Yeah. It would make a "death coffin with departure from hell properties" a half decent plane.  Will it make them a match for block 5-15 F-16A? It's within your rights to chose to believe so, but don't expect to be taken seriosuly.

BUT (and there's always a but), if by outperform you (or the author) mean pure dash, especially low level, i'm inclined to believe you. From all accounts they were some of the fastest things down low. Possibly even higher. 

 

Thats the thing, everyone relies on the have donut commentary which is actually correct for the version they had, the MS was garbage. The problem is that folks don't understand that those literally were gen1 mig 23's or if you want to be more accurate gen 0.5 since the soviets used that type for a year and sold them off since they were trash. They literally had no BVR radar, they had different engines, they had different wings, they were more or less different airframes than the Gen2 MLA and MLD which had way more thrust, totally different wings, capable BVR radars, and totally different aero performance.

 

1 hour ago, Airhunter said:

Why are we talking about the Mig-23 here? 

 

Cuz phantoms. And the fact people for some reason can accept the fact there are differences between an early B model phantom and late model S phantom, but can't come to grips that this may be also true for the mig23.

 

https://mikoyanmig29.wixsite.com/mig-23flogger/mig-23-variants-and-users

 

"

In October 1989, a Syrian pilot hijacked the MiG-23MLD Exported to Israel piloted by him, landing him at Megiddo airbase. This gave the Israelis a great opportunity to evaluate this model and they conducted a series of training battles between this MiG and all types of their fighters. Tests showed that the new MiG had very little superiority over the early F-16 model in acceleration and “energy maneuverability” at speeds over 900 km / h.

In the USSR, a 32-page manual was published for pilots on air combat on the MiG-23MLD Export versus F-15A, F-16A, F-4E and Kfir C2.

 

Compared to the F-15A, it is said that the MiG-23MLD Export has one unique advantage in rate of climb at speeds of more than 1,150 km / h.

Compared with the F-16A, the MiG-23MLD Export has a slight superiority in the established turn rate at altitudes of more than 5000 m and speeds close to maximum. And also in rate of climb at speeds less than 1000 km / h. At altitudes of less than 4000 m, the MiG has superiority in “energy maneuverability” at all speeds."

 

Also since we are talking about the phantom here:

"The manual's authors claim that in comparison with the F-4E (slatted), the MiG-23MLD has superior sustained turn performance throughout the entire envelope, excluding the range between 377 and 540kts (700 and 1,000km/h) below 21,000ft (6,400m). It also has the edge over the Phantom II in zoom climb performance at all altitudes and speeds, excluding the true airspeed range between 485 and 647kts (900 and ,200km/h) above 18,000ft (6,000m)."

 

Mind you this the MLD we are talking about is actually an MLA aerodynamically speaking. And the MLA will be somewhat worse than a real MLD. But what that article doesn't tell you, is that the Syrian MLD's were actually MLA's with MLD avionics. So that article is actually talking about MLA's in terms of aero performance, and MLD's were better yet.

So TLDR? MLA is about on par with early F16's... And better in every way than a F4E (slatted also confirmed as all Israeli F4E's had slats after the YKW). And the actual MLD is better yet.

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, F-2 said:

I can't speak for the Tornado but if you compare Tsagi's estimates on the F-15 and F-16a to actual NASA data they wildly underestimated the performance of  both airframes. As for the MLD, Airforces monthly October 2003 supposedly has MLD EM charts from the manual published. these are available on Ebay if anyone wanted to have an answer to the issue.

TsAGI SU27文字部分高清版.pdf 2.24 MB · 4 downloads

 

I mean Tsagi vs having access to the actual manuals... Which without much doubt the soviets actually had during the cold war. 

[F-2]

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean Tsagi vs having access to the actual manuals... Which without much doubt the soviets actually had during the cold war. 

Well if your not giving information you get from enemy sources to the people who design your planes I’m not sure what good it’s doing you.

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, F-2 said:

Well if your not giving information you get from enemy sources to the people who design your planes I’m not sure what good it’s doing you.

 

Yeah who knows. But internal politics was very much a thing in the USSR. 

 

At any rate back to the phantom. 

[MBot]

14 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

"The manual's authors claim that in comparison with the F-4E (slatted), the MiG-23MLD has superior sustained turn performance throughout the entire envelope, excluding the range between 377 and 540kts (700 and 1,000km/h) below 21,000ft (6,400m)."

 

That is a funny defenition of entire envelope... In other words, the slatted F-4E is a better sustained turner than the MiG-23MLD where it matters most.

[Bremspropeller]

15 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Also since we are talking about the phantom here:

"The manual's authors claim that in comparison with the F-4E (slatted), the MiG-23MLD has superior sustained turn performance throughout the entire envelope, excluding the range between 377 and 540kts (700 and 1,000km/h) below 21,000ft (6,400m). It also has the edge over the Phantom II in zoom climb performance at all altitudes and speeds, excluding the true airspeed range between 485 and 647kts (900 and ,200km/h) above 18,000ft (6,000m)."

 

Mind you this the MLD we are talking about is actually an MLA aerodynamically speaking. And the MLA will be somewhat worse than a real MLD. But what that article doesn't tell you, is that the Syrian MLD's were actually MLA's with MLD avionics. So that article is actually talking about MLA's in terms of aero performance, and MLD's were better yet.

So TLDR? MLA is about on par with early F16's... And better in every way than a F4E (slatted also confirmed as all Israeli F4E's had slats after the YKW). And the actual MLD is better yet

 

Reads to me like the F-4E has superior max sustained turn around corner velocity over the MLA at low altitudes.

It also has two dudes/ dudettes sitting inside and more Missiles. Plus it can throw stuff onto people.

 

Phantom > Flogger

[captain_dalan]

17 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Cuz phantoms. And the fact people for some reason can accept the fact there are differences between an early B model phantom and late model S phantom, but can't come to grips that this may be also true for the mig23.

 

Ah, that goes without saying. The later Floggers were definitely an evolutionary step from the early ones, and IMO probably the "best" that generation of planes had to offer. Their only real downfall was that they had to compete with Fulcrums and Flankers.  

17 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

In October 1989, a Syrian pilot hijacked the MiG-23MLD Exported to Israel piloted by him, landing him at Megiddo airbase. This gave the Israelis a great opportunity to evaluate this model and they conducted a series of training battles between this MiG and all types of their fighters. Tests showed that the new MiG had very little superiority over the early F-16 model in acceleration and “energy maneuverability” at speeds over 900 km / h.

 

 

 

This makes sense now. I apologize for my comments before. I was under impression that the comment about the 23 outperforming the early Vipers were for the entire or most of the envelope. But 500ish knots and above? Yeah, i could easily buy into that. As mentioned, all accounts seem to indicate the plane was really fast and accelerated like there was no tomorrow. Just don't expect it to wing any turning fights

 

All in all, probably the pinnacle of the 3rd gen fighters. By these i mean, the liked of the F-4, Mirage F1, MiG-23..... To me it always looked and felt like the ultimate capability you could squeeze with that era tech. 

Edited October 1, 2021 by captain_dalan

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Ah, that goes without saying. The later Floggers were definitely an evolutionary step from the early ones, and IMO probably the "best" that generation of planes had to offer. Their only real downfall was that they had to compete with Fulcrums and Flankers.  

This makes sense now. I apologize for my comments before. I was under impression that the comment about the 23 outperforming the early Vipers were for the entire or most of the envelope. But 500ish knots and above? Yeah, i could easily buy into that. As mentioned, all accounts seem to indicate the plane was really fast and accelerated like there was no tomorrow. Just don't expect it to wing any turning fights

 

All in all, probably the pinnacle of the 3rd gen fighters. By these i mean, the liked of the F-4, Mirage F1, MiG-23..... To me it always looked and felt like the ultimate capability you could squeeze with that era tech. 

 

 

The thing with floggers being, unlike the west where the "evolution" of planes generally meant they got fatter and less manuverable, the 23 got lighter, got more thrust and became much more maneuverable.

I mean TBH the later 23's will turn significantly better than people expect, but in general they aren't gonna beat 4th gens at that. But I think the G limits were like 8.5G on the later ones vs like 4-5G on the early ones. And with the Wings swept full forward, much like the tomcat, they could turn, though the general combat setting was more like 33deg of sweep. Also keep in mind that report is talking about the MLA without the further refinements the MLD had, and thats the one the soviets claimed could hang with vipers. 

And yeah, I expect the 23 to out accelerate and out speed pretty much everything currently in DCS including the viper.  At any rate, though yes there are some parts of the flight regime where it doesn't do as well as 4th gen. 

Edited October 1, 2021 by Harlikwin

[captain_dalan]

8 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

1. I mean TBH the later 23's will turn significantly better than people expect, but in general they aren't gonna beat 4th gens at that. But I think the G limits were like 8.5G on the later ones vs like 4-5G on the early ones.

2. And with the Wings swept full forward, much like the tomcat, they could turn, though the general combat setting was more like 33deg of sweep.

 

3. Also keep in mind that report is talking about the MLA without the further refinements the MLD had, and thats the one the soviets claimed could hang with vipers. 

 

1. It's not the g-limits that hampered the early 23't though. It was more the nasty flight behavior at high AoA, and it's IIRC the cause for the aerodynamic changes. Besides, like people often mistake high g with good turning, 8, 9 or even 10 g doesn't really mean anything if you need high airspeed to pull it off. Sustained or otherwise. And the 23 falls into this category.

2. Unlike the F-14, the wing sweep on the 23 isn't really meant to be used that way. Forward wings is for landing, wings back is for dash. Middle setting is for everything else. What helps the late 23's when compared to the early ones, aside from do 'dog tooth' and some stabs changes, is that the early ones had that middle setting at 45 degrees (in fact all of them were like this, except for the MLD, which had this capability added) while as you mentioned the MLD had that setting to 33 in addition to 45. Could you decide to go landing mode while in combat? Honestly i don't know. Would it help? With those tiny wings and elevators, most likely not much. 

3. Again, by hang i don't think this means actually turn and burn. Or if it does, then the report should be taken with more then a few grains of salt. 

At one point i considered doing a comprehensive comparison chart for the 3rd gen planes like i did for the 4th gen ones, however, obligations at work and IRL stopped me, as did the availability for data on some planes, like the F1. From what i had gathered up to that point, my observations were these:

 

A. The ML and MLA Floggers (the ones that got lighter, reinforced to do up to 8.5 and 7.5g and got the stabs modified) raised the "maneuverability" of the plane (when in light configuration - 2 missiles and 50-60% fuel) roughly to the level of the MiG-21 BiS in similar configuration. By maneuverability here i mean capability to generate g's, that is ITR. I never bothered to calculate the excess power curves, as those take forever. The sustained turning rates are of course better then the 21 at higher speeds. 

B.  As the late Phantoms and the late Fishbeds are actually comparable (again roughly) in turning capability, even without direct F-4 and MiG-23 comparison node for node, i would expect the 23 to be similar to the late F-4. By late here, i mean soft-winged F-4, with maneuvering devices. 

C. As the MLD had further improvements over the ML/MLA this should bring it somewhat above the F-4 in terms of pure turning capability. How much above? Hard to tell. I never got to do that math. Unfortunately i stopped with the MLA as mentioned. I would expect better pitch capability and tighter turns with the wings set at 33 degrees, BUT at the expense of the sustained turning capability.

Could this this be made useful in flight? Well, wings are moved manually in the Flogger and fumbling around in the middle of hard maneuvers could not be easy, but i guess you could do it if you were good enough. How much would you gain? Probably enough to out turn a Phantom. A Viper? no way. The STR is not going to be better then that on the ML/MLA planes. The vortex generators and new sweep angle with help with ITR, but actually harm STR. And whatever ITR is there, i doubt it'll be enough for even an alpha limited Viper. The stars just aren't aligned for that. The Flogger just started way too behind. It was greatly improved over time, but those improvements were mostly there to remove flaws inherent into the design, thus acting like incremental steps, rather then revolutionary leaps. It remains the testimony of how much you can push a design's capability by integrated ever newer tech and understanding into an old frame (similarly to what the 21 is really), but still doesn't make the jump into the next category. 

LATE EDIT:

On second thought, a wing sweep of 33 VS 45 degrees, may actually improve the lift to drag ratio at lower speeds, thus provide better STR as well. up to what mach number i can't say. 

Edited October 1, 2021 by captain_dalan

[Harlikwin]

59 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

1. It's not the g-limits that hampered the early 23't though. It was more the nasty flight behavior at high AoA, and it's IIRC the cause for the aerodynamic changes. Besides, like people often mistake high g with good turning, 8, 9 or even 10 g doesn't really mean anything if you need high airspeed to pull it off. Sustained or otherwise. And the 23 falls into this category.

2. Unlike the F-14, the wing sweep on the 23 isn't really meant to be used that way. Forward wings is for landing, wings back is for dash. Middle setting is for everything else. What helps the late 23's when compared to the early ones, aside from do 'dog tooth' and some stabs changes, is that the early ones had that middle setting at 45 degrees (in fact all of them were like this, except for the MLD, which had this capability added) while as you mentioned the MLD had that setting to 33 in addition to 45. Could you decide to go landing mode while in combat? Honestly i don't know. Would it help? With those tiny wings and elevators, most likely not much. 

3. Again, by hang i don't think this means actually turn and burn. Or if it does, then the report should be taken with more then a few grains of salt. 

At one point i considered doing a comprehensive comparison chart for the 3rd gen planes like i did for the 4th gen ones, however, obligations at work and IRL stopped me, as did the availability for data on some planes, like the F1. From what i had gathered up to that point, my observations were these:

 

A. The ML and MLA Floggers (the ones that got lighter, reinforced to do up to 8.5 and 7.5g and got the stabs modified) raised the "maneuverability" of the plane (when in light configuration - 2 missiles and 50-60% fuel) roughly to the level of the MiG-21 BiS in similar configuration. By maneuverability here i mean capability to generate g's, that is ITR. I never bothered to calculate the excess power curves, as those take forever. The sustained turning rates are of course better then the 21 at higher speeds. 

B.  As the late Phantoms and the late Fishbeds are actually comparable (again roughly) in turning capability, even without direct F-4 and MiG-23 comparison node for node, i would expect the 23 to be similar to the late F-4. By late here, i mean soft-winged F-4, with maneuvering devices. 

C. As the MLD had further improvements over the ML/MLA this should bring it somewhat above the F-4 in terms of pure turning capability. How much above? Hard to tell. I never got to do that math. Unfortunately i stopped with the MLA as mentioned. I would expect better pitch capability and tighter turns with the wings set at 33 degrees, BUT at the expense of the sustained turning capability.

Could this this be made useful in flight? Well, wings are moved manually in the Flogger and fumbling around in the middle of hard maneuvers could not be easy, but i guess you could do it if you were good enough. How much would you gain? Probably enough to out turn a Phantom. A Viper? no way. The STR is not going to be better then that on the ML/MLA planes. The vortex generators and new sweep angle with help with ITR, but actually harm STR. And whatever ITR is there, i doubt it'll be enough for even an alpha limited Viper. The stars just aren't aligned for that. The Flogger just started way too behind. It was greatly improved over time, but those improvements were mostly there to remove flaws inherent into the design, thus acting like incremental steps, rather then revolutionary leaps. It remains the testimony of how much you can push a design's capability by integrated ever newer tech and understanding into an old frame (similarly to what the 21 is really), but still doesn't make the jump into the next category. 

 

I mean not to derail this any further, but the 23 wings didn't have "settings" it was continuously variable over the whole range with a handle. Th e MLA guys figured out that 33 worked better than 45... The 23D would automatically drop flaps at 33 along with other wing changes. As for energy fighting the thing is a rocket in terms of thrust so I think it would do "ok" in terms of STR. I've seen the 16 deg charts and much like the tomcat it turns "tight", unlike the tomcat-A it has the thrust to keep that going. So. IMO 23 smokes phantom and most other 3rd gens depending on the regime even in a turn fight. And its not really that far off compared to 4th gens, and has better acceleration. 

 

As for STR I mean I assume thats the "energy" fighting the report is talking about.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Harlikwin

[mkellytx]

On 9/28/2021 at 5:02 PM, TLTeo said:

To be precise - Marine Phantoms didn't really go to North Vietnam or do a2a. Navy Phantoms post Top Gun improved their kill:loss ratio from ~2:1 to ~7:1. USAF didn't change anything about training, assumed the -E with the gun would magically fix everything, and stayed at ~2:1 even during Linebacker.

 

 

There's a bit comparing apples to oranges to bananas since the Air Force and Navy used their Phantoms differently, which makes for a wonderfully continuous issue.  The Navy used their VF squadrons primarily for air to air, while the Air Force did not.  Also it's a mistake to say they added a gun and kept right on with the Rolling Thunder mindset.  One of the most effective things they did was to make each of the five Phantom wings that fought in 1972-3 specialize.  The 8th, 49th, and 366th focused on air to ground and laying chaff corridors.  The 432th at Udorn focused on air to air (sweep and BARCAP) and the 388th at Korat focused on escort and the Kill part of Hunter Killer with the Weasels.  44 of the Air Force's 50 kills came from those two wings, 36 were from 4 squadrons, the 34th, 35th, 13th and 555th.  The Triple Nickel led the pack with 20, the 13th followed with 8, but that really shouldn't be much of a surprise since those squadrons were stacked with FWS grads and Combat Tree.

 

The ratios at the wing level would be 34-10 (3.4-1) for the 432th and 10-3 (3.3-1) for the 388th, which combines to 44-13 (3.4-1), not great.  But each of those had a bunch of deployed squadrons that weren't as specialized as the four squadrons, so how did they do?  The 34th had 4.5 kills and 2 losses, the 35th had 3.5 kills and no losses, the 13th had 8 kills to 1 loss and the Triple Nickel had 20 kills to 3 losses.  All together the specialists were 36 to 6, 6-1, which is Crusader territory.  Not shabby, maybe not post Top Gun numbers, but better than Rolling Thunder.  It also bears mentioning all 1972-3 Air Force kills were Mig-21 (41) and Mig-19 (9) compared to the Navy's 26 which were mostly Mig-17's (16), Mig-19 (2) and Mig-21 (8).

 

Final thing to consider, the Air Force operated over a much wider swath of the North than did the Navy.  The Navy Route packs were closer to the shore, flatter and lent themselves to better radar coverage.  So generally their fighters had better SA than the Air Force who had to contend with the mountains in the west.  Which isn't to make an excuse, because when NVAF figured out Combat Tree told the Phantoms where they were and when Red Crown and Disco couldn't see through the terrain, the Air Force adapted and deployed Tea Ball.  A lot of this history is laid out in Marshall Michel's book Clashes, I would very highly recommend it.

Edited October 2, 2021 by mkellytx