Oh yeah, F-104 is coming! Which one we are going to have?

[bies]

14 hours ago, LordOrion said:

Main weapon against bombers, not fighters: you don't need supermaneuverability to stay behind a TU-95, and I don't think high speed slashing attacks works against manourvering Migs, unless you take them completely by surprise.

I've never find it difficult to shoot down enemy fighters when flying Dora or Mustang, despite them having inferior turn rates.

E. Hartmann in post war interview stated more than 90% of his victims never see him attacking untill his bullets started to hit them, with supersonic fighters such attacks are even easier and window in which attacker needs to be spotted is even smaller.

Originally Kelly Johnson designed F-104 as air superiority fighter to defeat MiGs in air combat. Not as an interceptor. He personally contacted Korean war US fighter pilots to know what was, in practice, the most important factors in air combat. Their conclusion was more or less: speed, acceleration, climb rate, zoom climb, ceiling, gun. Thus he created a fighter which overperformed every existing aircraft in this parameters, armed with newly designed powerfull Vulcan gun.

But USAF testing it was more inclined to use it as interceptor due to its fantastic performance.

Still, their USAF pilots in units were trained for air combat to outfly enemy fighters, using it as the most powerfull BnZ fighter ever.

[Silver_Dragon]

Bearing in mind that Aerges will most likely make a G-model from 65-72, which was armed with cannon, AIM-9, bombs and rockets.

 

[Hatman335]

@Vibora I apologize for pinging but I have seen you on several occassions reading the thread, would it be possible for you to comment on which variant is planned or is this still something that you can't talk about or it's undetermined? Thank you in advance.

[LordOrion]

6 hours ago, bies said:

I've never find it difficult to shoot down enemy fighters when flying Dora or Mustang, despite them having inferior turn rates.

That's not the same thing.

[GUFA]

On 8/26/2023 at 8:40 PM, 303_Kermit said:

Disagree. No F-104 without M61A1 Vulcan

I makes me laugh that you think guns were, even then that important, just how long does a standard load last through a Vulcan when your "Turning & Burning"?

On 8/27/2023 at 3:26 AM, bies said:

BVR didn't exist back then. Even Sparrow was well within visual range except for poor visibility/night.

BVR= Beyond visual range, meaning if you cant see it (with eyeballs) but the radar is tracking it then a Sparrow can hit it rain,hail or shine. As long as its reliable and the target isn't notching. The later Monopulse guidance models were better+ As Vietnam was the Sparrows only real combat period and US forces ROE (of the time) insisted upon PID and this also contributed the Sparrows bad rap. Remember all US 4 Gens used Sparrow...

C'mon Aerges DO IT RIGHT and do an "S"

[303_Kermit]

During Vietnam war conflict AiM-7 vs 20mm (according to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_aerial_victories_of_the_Vietnam_War)

59 AiM-7 kills
48 20mm kills


... if I counted correctly

[Temetre]

And mind that many of the 20mm kills are from F-105s. They only got two sidewinder kills. No kills for F-104s.

If you look at F-4s, they are much more about Aim9/7s.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Temetre

[Bigskill]

Well to make everyone happy, lets make a G with sparrow/aspide capability and cannon so everyone will be happy

Maybe they also planning on different variant with different armament like they are doing with the F1

Time will tell!! But Italy flown the most out of the 104 up to the 2004 so that will need to be taken in consideration

[303_Kermit]

7 hours ago, Temetre said:

And mind that many of the 20mm kills are from F-105s. They only got two sidewinder kills. No kills for F-104s.

If you look at F-4s, they are much more about Aim9/7s.

 

F-104 made never a kill. Not with AiM-7 nor AiM-9 or Vulcan. They were used in such way, that it made it impossible. Then were they quickly replaced by F-4. It doesn't mede Vulcan not important. Exploitation of F-4B/C/D proved that 20mm cannon is necessary. F-104 wasn't a turn and burn type of plane. It was last B&Z fighter. He could accelerate, climb, dive and zoom climb better that anything else in '60.

Edited August 28, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb 303_Kermit:

F-104 made never a kill. Not with AiM-7 nor AiM-9 or Vulcan. They were used in such way, that it made it impossible. Then were they quickly replaced by F-4. It doesn't mede Vulcan not important. Exploitation of F-4B/C/D proved that 20mm cannon is necessary. F-104 wasn't a turn and burn type of plane. It was last B&Z fighter. He could accelerate, climb, dive and zoom climb better that anything else in '60.

I would argue that the F-4 proved that the cannon might be useful, but it wasnt really necessary. Even after the cannon-variant was introduced, most kills came in equal measures from Sparrows and Sidewinders. Pilots just got better at using the missiles, while technical shortcomings were sorted out. In the latter part Sparrows got most kills afaik.

Its harder to make a judgement about the F-104 imo, but the concept itself might be flawed. If youre that fast, its gotta be very hard to get accurate gun hits with a B&Z fighter.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Temetre

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Bigskill:

Well to make everyone happy, lets make a G with sparrow/aspide capability and cannon so everyone will be happy

Only the 104S can use Sparrows. The G's radar doesnt got an illuminator to guide missiles.

[Velik]

"G" guess

[303_Kermit]

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

I would argue that the F-4 proved that the cannon might be useful, but it wasnt really necessary. Even after the cannon-variant was introduced, most kills came in equal measures from Sparrows and Sidewinders. Pilots just got better at using the missiles, while technical shortcomings were sorted out. In the latter part Sparrows got most kills afaik.

Its harder to make a judgement about the F-104 imo, but the concept itself might be flawed. If youre that fast, its gotta be very hard to get accurate gun hits with a B&Z fighter.

 

It's not my statement. "Gun is necessary"; is the statement of USAF sent to McDonnell Douglas  after "Black Wednesday" and whole April 1967, USAF orders Phantom with a Gun. They chose a Gun over Pulse - Doppler Radar. USN introduced and used M61A1 Pod.

[Temetre]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb 303_Kermit:

It's not my statement. "Gun is necessary"; is the statement of USAF sent to McDonnell Douglas  after "Black Wednesday" and whole April 1967, USAF orders Phantom with a Gun. They chose a Gun over Pulse - Doppler Radar. USN introduced and used M61A1 Pod.

The USAF made a lot of wrong calls. Black Wednesday happening shows clearly they didnt understand the conflict, hence they tried to adapt.

And considering the F-4 went on to get most of its kills with missiles, I think that shows that a lack of gun wasnt the problem. Rather than the well docummented lack of strategy, communication and training in the scenario they found over vietnam. Late in the war, sparrows became the most effective weapon IIRC, even beyond sidewinders. 

The USN had better training from the beginning, and never struggled quite as much. The gun pod also seems more like a token gesture, or something for ground attack, considering how bad pods are for dogfighting (drag+no radar sight).

Edited August 28, 2023 by Temetre

[Bremspropeller]

20 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

USN introduced and used M61A1 Pod.

USN and USM used the MK4 gun pod, which is a different thing altogether. On top of that, the USN didn't use the pod on the boat, which essentially means the pod was used in theater - at times - by the Corps only.

[303_Kermit]

15 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

USN and USM used the MK4 gun pod, which is a different thing altogether. On top of that, the USN didn't use the pod on the boat, which essentially means the pod was used in theater - at times - by the Corps only.

That's very interesting. Any sources?

[Bremspropeller]

30 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

That's very interesting. Any sources?

I think it's in here

null

[303_Kermit]

32 minutes ago, Temetre said:

The USAF made a lot of wrong calls. Black Wednesday happening shows clearly they didnt understand the conflict, hence they tried to adapt.

And considering the F-4 went on to get most of its kills with missiles, I think that shows that a lack of gun wasnt the problem. Rather than the well docummented lack of strategy, communication and training in the scenario they found over vietnam. Late in the war, sparrows became the most effective weapon IIRC, even beyond sidewinders. 

The USN had better training from the beginning, and never struggled quite as much. The gun pod also seems more like a token gesture, or something for ground attack, considering how bad pods are for dogfighting (drag+no radar sight).

 

Quite the opposite. Bill Gunston writes, that among F-4 Pilots it was popular a statement, that it's quite cool to shoot one AiM- after another, but it's doesn't bring anything down. F-4 crew was (almost?) disrespected by A-4/A-5/A-6/ A-7 crews. F-8 was considered to be actually a only "trusted" Navy fighter by them. In other words - it was pure luck if AiM actually hit something. It was always first choice, but not always was possible to use. 2G limit, humid, and... Mildew inside AiM-9B head made them unreliable as main weapon. Especially against MiG-17

On the black wednesday 10 MiG's Intercepted 52 USAF planes under command of famous Robin Olds. 3 Aircraft has been lost, 3 crewman captured, and 2 killed. VPAF lost no planes that day.

Same situation came on 2 December 1966, when USAF lost 5 planes (3x F-4C) and the Navy 3 Planes (1xF-4B). 

[Gunfreak]

On 8/27/2023 at 2:56 PM, bies said:

I've never find it difficult to shoot down enemy fighters when flying Dora or Mustang, despite them having inferior turn rates.

E. Hartmann in post war interview stated more than 90% of his victims never see him attacking untill his bullets started to hit them, with supersonic fighters such attacks are even easier and window in which attacker needs to be spotted is even smaller.

Originally Kelly Johnson designed F-104 as air superiority fighter to defeat MiGs in air combat. Not as an interceptor. He personally contacted Korean war US fighter pilots to know what was, in practice, the most important factors in air combat. Their conclusion was more or less: speed, acceleration, climb rate, zoom climb, ceiling, gun. Thus he created a fighter which overperformed every existing aircraft in this parameters, armed with newly designed powerfull Vulcan gun.

But USAF testing it was more inclined to use it as interceptor due to its fantastic performance.

Still, their USAF pilots in units were trained for air combat to outfly enemy fighters, using it as the most powerfull BnZ fighter ever.

True for all ww2 aces I would think, the spitfire was know for its turn rate. Yet the pilots said the nr 1 thing was always diving down from above and taking them by surprise.

I don't have statistics (dont think that exist) but I'm guessing most fighter pilots shot down in ww2 got shot down in the first few seconds of any engagement many of them taken by complete surprise.

[303_Kermit]

6 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

True for all ww2 aces I would think, the spitfire was know for its turn rate. Yet the pilots said the nr 1 thing was always diving down from above and taking them by surprise.

I don't have statistics (don't think that exist) but I'm guessing most fighter pilots shot down in ww2 got shot down in the first few seconds of any engagement many of them taken by complete surprise.

In vietnam most VPAF kills come as a result of surprise. In fact I believe, they would welcome F-104. They used to attack from low 6, and quickly disengaged 

Edited August 28, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[Gunfreak]

27 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

In vietnam most VPAF kills come as a result of surprise. In fact I believe, they would welcome F-104. They used to attack from low 6, and quick disengage

 

The Vietnamese really did some fantastic feats given what they had to work with. Worse planes, worse training, less of everything. 

As a an American pilots said (i think I'm paraphrasing from The Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club by Cleaver now; if the Vietnamese had our training and our planes we would have been in serious trouble.

[Temetre]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb 303_Kermit:

Quite the opposite. Bill Gunston writes, that among F-4 Pilots it was popular a statement, that it's quite cool to shoot one AiM- after another, but it's doesn't bring anything down. F-4 crew was (almost?) disrespected by A-4/A-5/A-6/ A-7 crews. F-8 was considered to be actually a only "trusted" Navy fighter by them. In other words - it was pure luck if AiM actually hit something. It was always first choice, but not always was possible to use. 2G limit, humid, and... Mildew inside AiM-9B head made them unreliable as main weapon. Especially against MiG-17

On the black wednesday 10 MiG's Intercepted 52 USAF planes under command of famous Robin Olds. 3 Aircraft has been lost, 3 crewman captured, and 2 killed. VPAF lost no planes that day.

Same situation came on 2 December 1966, when USAF lost 5 planes (3x F-4C) and the Navy 3 Planes (1xF-4B). 

Pilots are biased. If they are not trained to use a weapon, which has some reliability issues, and then see the weapon missed most of the predictably bad shots... yeah, of course they might think its a bad weapon and they dont wanna bet their life on it. Guns are much more predictable and under their control. Same way pilots might dislike the "feel" of FBW, when in reality it gives them so much more control about what the plane is doing, just in a more indirect way.

But that doesnt mean the weapon is bad. The bit about "theres a low chance to hit" usually depends on the usage of the weapon, and you cant tell me that guns have an easy time getting kills. And its actually the prefered strategy for missiles these days to go for low risk low kill chance shots. Do that enough and you get a kill, without putting your plane too much into danger.

 

And I think the numbers really back that up. Idk how accurate Wikipedia is, but the US aerial victory list shows 19 F-8 kills over vietnam. And the Aim-9 article claims 16 kills by F8s with Aim-9s.

All available data seems to show that guns dont bring many planes down, but missiles do. The F-105s have an extraordinary amount of gun kills, but that plane was also taken out of service because of massive losses. You could say thats because its a bomber, but thats also true for the F-4s: Not all Phantoms lost were in fighter configuration.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Temetre

[303_Kermit]

21 hours ago, Temetre said:

Pilots are biased. If they are not trained to use a weapon, which has some reliability issues, and then see the weapon missed most of the predictably bad shots... yeah, of course they might think its a bad weapon and they dont wanna bet their life on it. Guns are much more predictable and under their control. Same way pilots might dislike the "feel" of FBW, when in reality it gives them so much more control about what the plane is doing, just in a more indirect way.

But that doesnt mean the weapon is bad. The bit about "theres a low chance to hit" usually depends on the usage of the weapon, and you cant tell me that guns have an easy time getting kills. And its actually the prefered strategy for missiles these days to go for low risk low kill chance shots. Do that enough and you get a kill, without putting your plane too much into danger.

 

And I think the numbers really back that up. Idk how accurate Wikipedia is, but the US aerial victory list shows 19 F-8 kills over vietnam. And the Aim-9 article claims 16 kills by F8s with Aim-9s.

All available data seems to show that guns dont bring many planes down, but missiles do. The F-105s have an extraordinary amount of gun kills, but that plane was also taken out of service because of massive losses. You could say thats because its a bomber, but thats also true for the F-4s: Not all Phantoms lost were in fighter configuration.

 

These discussion was solved a long time ago. Before even we were born. I don't say, that gun is better than missile, but I say that gun is necessary. Lack of gun is a serious lack. F-4B once he shoot sidewinder quickly disengaged. F-8 and F-100 quite the contrary. That was the difference.

My regards. Nice discussion here

[some1]

21 hours ago, Temetre said:

 

And I think the numbers really back that up. Idk how accurate Wikipedia is, but the US aerial victory list shows 19 F-8 kills over vietnam. And the Aim-9 article claims 16 kills by F8s with Aim-9s.

F-8 guns were utterly unreliable, IIRC it had something to do with single point of failure (hydraulics? pneumatics?) that could disable all for guns simultaneously. So these numbers do not mean much, there are stories of potential gun kills denied by guns failure, just like missile kills denied by missile failure.

Edited August 30, 2023 by some1

[Temetre]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb some1:

F-8 guns were utterly unreliable, IIRC it had something to do with single point of failure (hydraulics? pneumatics?) that could disable all for guns simultaneously. So these numbers do not mean much, there are stories of potential gun kills denied by guns failure, just like missile kills denied by missile failure.

Interesting! I was mostly pointing that out because Kermit seemed to say the F-8 were beloved because of their gun.

vor 19 Minuten schrieb 303_Kermit:

These discussion was solved a long time ago. Before even we were born. I don't say, that gun is better than missile, but I say that gun is necessary. Lack of gun is a serious lack. F-4B once he shoot sidewinder quickly disengaged. F-8 and F-100 quite the contrary. That was the difference.

My regards. Nice discussion here

Im not disagreeing the gun is useful. Im happy were getting an F-4 with gun in DCS