Ideal USAF air superiority fighter for the Vietnam War.

[Cjc]

While the Starfighter needed a small country to turn, it had superb acceleration and climb for its era. It was in many ways a more extreme version of the Phantom, performance-wise: speed and power for days, but you do not want to get into a turn fight in it.

Except this issue was never acceleration and speed, the f-4 had plenty of that, what the op wants is a plane that turn quickly inorder handle mig ambushes, honestly the f-104 would probably do a lot worse in that scenario then the f-4 did. If you want turns the the f8U-3 is what you want, it handedly beat the f4 in terms of turning and dogfighting.

 

[apparition13]

But if all you want to do is change the plane then the F8U-3 and the f11-1f are the planes that better fit how the war was actually fought by the us.

I've said this before as well. Crusader III and Super Tigers could give the US a high/low air superiority/attack-fighter mix like the F-15 and F-16 or the F-14 and F-18, except in the mid-60s rather than the late '70s.

Just echoing some points that have already been made but that is literally the F-104: "After a series of interviews with Korean War fighter pilots in 1951, Kelly Johnson, then lead designer at Lockheed, opted to reverse the trend of ever-larger and more complex fighters and produce a simple, lightweight aircraft with maximum altitude and climb performance." [wikipedia]

I've said this before as well, which is an unpopular opinion, but I really think this is an example being too literal on Johnson's part. He heard "more speed" but didn't hear the implied "and at least as much maneuverability" since that is so obvious to a fighter pilot that they wouldn't think to say it out loud. So he maxed speed at the expense of maneuverability, which is not what the Korean War pilots wanted. They wanted something that could out-climb and out-accelerate the MiG-15 while still being superior enough in a turning fight, not something that would be dogmeat if it got into a slow fight.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I've said this before as well, which is an unpopular opinion, but I really think this is an example being too literal on Johnson's part. He heard "more speed" but didn't hear the implied "and at least as much maneuverability" since that is so obvious to a fighter pilot that they wouldn't think to say it out loud.

I don't know that you're wrong - but as I understand it, the concept behind the F-104 was to lean heavily into hit-and-run tactics, which USAF pilots were having a lot of success with in F-86s but needed more performance to perform against newer aircraft. Similar tactics were employed by North Vietnamese MiGs in Vietnam, to similar success!

Actually, while the F-104 might not be the best aircraft technically, it is at least an aircraft that the USAF wanted to buy as an air superiority fighter. If they'd stuck with that plan instead of going all-in on nuclear strike, then they might not be flying a brilliant fighter - but they'd have pilots who were more familiar with the tactics to employ it.

And that, rather than the aircraft itself, might make all the difference.

A panic purchase of F-8s, F-11s, or F-5s in the mid-1960s isn't going to give them enough time to build up the attitude needed to make a real difference.

 

[Archibald]

Very interesting post above. That's why I suggested buying a batch of F-104S
- since USAF 104As were too old and unreliable.
- While the 104Cs as deployed OTL were not too bad - but too few and took some losses on top of that.

Lockheed F-104C Starfighter

- Fresh F-104S would also bring that Sparrow capability- although a gun variant may be much more useful TBH. Particularly for hits and runs against MIGs.
Geez I really like that idea - and not only because it is mine.
Were AMI F-104S able to aerial refueling ?

Lockheed F-104S Starfighter

 

[Archibald]

For frack sake, it is next to impossible to answer that dumb question via the Internet - did the AMI F-104S had an IFR probe ? could they take some kerosene behind a 707 TT ?

 

[njiiaf]

I don't think people realize just how poor the F-104's maneuverability was. Or what 'boom-and-zoom' tactics really mean. It doesn't mean just pulling up into the vertical and diving back down, or flying away for 10 seconds and returning. It means you need to accelerate to high mach and very high altitude and extend away from your bandit by enough of a distance that he doesn't get a fox 2 or gunshot on you as soon as you turn around. It requires a decent amount of preparation, coordination with wingmen, high SA, and generally favorable conditions to pull off properly.

If you are doing Defensive Counter Air, then you are in a good position to pull these tactics off.

If you are escorting bombers into enemy airspace with low SA, as we spent a significant amount of time doing in Vietnam, and you end up getting ambushed by high-maneuverability fighters - then forget it. Firstly, you wont have the raw instantaneous turn rate to jink an incoming gunshot (and with the F-104's downright dangerous performance at high-aoa you might even depart flight if you try). Secondly, if you try to extend away in order to rejoin in a better position, you will not only leave your bombers vulnerable but you may end up with a head on gunshot on your bandit at best.

All of this is to say that while these tactics can work, especially against older, subsonic fighters, it can be a downright headache to it pull it off properly. And that's against aircraft that should be obsolete against yours. If you are engaging MiG-21s, you will have such a disadvantage in sustained and instantaneous performance that you will need to stay above 600 knots and very high altitudes just to survive. I don't know how familiar you all are with modern dogfighting, but most merges will happen at 450-500 knots and by the time any one aircraft is in a position for a reliable kill you may be down to 200 or even lower.

Its so much easier to just build an aircraft that can turn properly to begin with. It got to the point in the '71 war that F-86s were more consistent in the air superiority role than the F-104s were.

 

[njiiaf]

If it's not too much of a hassle I'd also like to discuss the Super Sabre in this thread. I have a bit of a soft spot for this aircraft and on paper it had the potential to be a decent performer. After all, it was heavily based on the Sabre, which was a fantastic design, and built by a highly reputable company. But it turned out to be a bit of a dud and was mediocre in everything but ground attack while also being extremely unreliable and dangerous to fly.

Was it just too heavy to be a good air superiority fighter? What could they have done otherwise to change that?

It just seems like the USAF was at a sizeable disadvantage with its transitional mid-fifties fighters against their Soviet contemporaries. And I know the MiG-19 had some major flaws like extremely short legs and poor engine reliability, but it seems to be substantially better than the F100 in air-to-air (at least on paper).

 

[Cjc]

I don't think people realize just how poor the F-104's maneuverability was. Or what 'boom-and-zoom' tactics really mean. It doesn't mean just pulling up into the vertical and diving back down, or flying away for 10 seconds and returning. It means you need to accelerate to high mach and very high altitude and extend away from your bandit by enough of a distance that he doesn't get a fox 2 or gunshot on you as soon as you turn around. It requires a decent amount of preparation, coordination with wingmen, high SA, and generally favorable conditions to pull off properly.

If you are doing Defensive Counter Air, then you are in a good position to pull these tactics off.

If you are escorting bombers into enemy airspace with low SA, as we spent a significant amount of time doing in Vietnam, and you end up getting ambushed by high-maneuverability fighters - then forget it. Firstly, you wont have the raw instantaneous turn rate to jink an incoming gunshot (and with the F-104's downright dangerous performance at high-aoa you might even depart flight if you try). Secondly, if you try to extend away in order to rejoin in a better position, you will not only leave your bombers vulnerable but you may end up with a head on gunshot on your bandit at best.

All of this is to say that while these tactics can work, especially against older, subsonic fighters, it can be a downright headache to it pull it off properly. And that's against aircraft that should be obsolete against yours. If you are engaging MiG-21s, you will have such a disadvantage in sustained and instantaneous performance that you will need to stay above 600 knots and very high altitudes just to survive. I don't know how familiar you all are with modern dogfighting, but most merges will happen at 450-500 knots and by the time any one aircraft is in a position for a reliable kill you may be down to 200 or even lower.

Its so much easier to just build an aircraft that can turn properly to begin with. It got to the point in the '71 war that F-86s were more consistent in the air superiority role than the F-104s were.

Ironically enough the f-104 would have been perfect for what the north vetnames did during the war point defensive counter air, which makes sense because that's exactly what the mig-21 was, dispute its reputation the mig-21 wasnt ever maneuverable,it only seems like it is because of great first turn proformance thanks to its delta, but that same delta causes it to drop like a brick on every subsequent turn. hell its even called a interceptor on Wikipedia!

 

[njiiaf]

Ironically enough the f-104 would have been perfect for what the north vetnames did during the war point defensive counter air, which makes sense because that's exactly what the mig-21 was,

Yeah that is pretty amusing.

dispute its reputation the mig-21 wasnt ever maneuverable,it only seems like it is because of great first turn proformance thanks to its delta, but that same delta causes it to drop like a brick on every subsequent turn. hell its even called a interceptor on Wikipedia!

Although the MiG-21 was technically/officially a point interceptor, it did actually end up with decent maneuverability. That's why the U.S. used the also respectably maneuverable F-5 to simulate it. The E-M diagrams and evaluations in HAVE DOUGHNUT also show this quite clearly.

 

[Cjc]

Ironically enough the f-104 would have been perfect for what the north vetnames did during the war point defensive counter air, which makes sense because that's exactly what the mig-21 was,

Yeah that is pretty amusing.

dispute its reputation the mig-21 wasnt ever maneuverable,it only seems like it is because of great first turn proformance thanks to its delta, but that same delta causes it to drop like a brick on every subsequent turn. hell its even called a interceptor on Wikipedia!

Although the MiG-21 was technically/officially a point interceptor, it did actually end up with decent maneuverability. That's why the U.S. used the also respectably maneuverable F-5 to simulate it. The E-M diagrams and evaluations in HAVE DOUGHNUT also show this quite clearly.View attachment 683284View attachment 683285View attachment 683286

And yet whenever the f-4 dogfought mig-21, sometimes even from ambush it regularly out turned the mig-21, besides this only said it has better manuvbilty then the f-104 not the f-4. Dosnt help that the turning abliatly of the f-5 has been exatuated do to its use in training. Those were generally with very light aircraft.

 

[njiiaf]

Ironically enough the f-104 would have been perfect for what the north vetnames did during the war point defensive counter air, which makes sense because that's exactly what the mig-21 was,

Yeah that is pretty amusing.

dispute its reputation the mig-21 wasnt ever maneuverable,it only seems like it is because of great first turn proformance thanks to its delta, but that same delta causes it to drop like a brick on every subsequent turn. hell its even called a interceptor on Wikipedia!

Although the MiG-21 was technically/officially a point interceptor, it did actually end up with decent maneuverability. That's why the U.S. used the also respectably maneuverable F-5 to simulate it. The E-M diagrams and evaluations in HAVE DOUGHNUT also show this quite clearly.View attachment 683284View attachment 683285View attachment 683286

And yet whenever the f-4 dogfought mig-21, sometimes even from ambush it regularly out turned the mig-21, besides this only said it has better manuvbilty then the f-104 not the f-4. Dosnt help that the turning abliatly of the f-5 has been exatuated do to its use in training. Those were generally with very light aircraft.

I’m not surprised that the f-4 can outturn the mig in certain situations. The f-4 had a decent TWR and at low altitudes/high speeds could perform well against the mig. Doubly so if the mig is coming in too hot and is way above his cornering speed or gets too slow.
At higher altitudes the delta wing of the mig actually gave it an advantage.

Edit: For proof here’s an E-M diagram comparing the F-16, F-4, and MiG-21. Looks to be at an altitude of 11km if I’m reading that correctly.

 

[Cjc]

Ironically enough the f-104 would have been perfect for what the north vetnames did during the war point defensive counter air, which makes sense because that's exactly what the mig-21 was,

Yeah that is pretty amusing.

dispute its reputation the mig-21 wasnt ever maneuverable,it only seems like it is because of great first turn proformance thanks to its delta, but that same delta causes it to drop like a brick on every subsequent turn. hell its even called a interceptor on Wikipedia!

Although the MiG-21 was technically/officially a point interceptor, it did actually end up with decent maneuverability. That's why the U.S. used the also respectably maneuverable F-5 to simulate it. The E-M diagrams and evaluations in HAVE DOUGHNUT also show this quite clearly.View attachment 683284View attachment 683285View attachment 683286

And yet whenever the f-4 dogfought mig-21, sometimes even from ambush it regularly out turned the mig-21, besides this only said it has better manuvbilty then the f-104 not the f-4. Dosnt help that the turning abliatly of the f-5 has been exatuated do to its use in training. Those were generally with very light aircraft.

I’m not surprised that the f-4 can outturn the mig in certain situations. The f-4 had a decent TWR and at low altitudes/high speeds could perform well against the mig. Doubly so if the mig is coming in too hot and is way above his cornering speed or gets too slow.
At higher altitudes the delta wing of the mig actually gave it an advantage.

Edit: For proof here’s an E-M diagram comparing the F-16, F-4, and MiG-21. Looks to be at an altitude of 11km if I’m reading that correctly.

Consdering i can't think of a dogfight that happened above mach 1 I think that diagram rather proves my point.

Its not the best but the dcs devs do really pride themselves on acracy, I would recommend looking up a video on f-4 vs mig-21 to visualize this, the mig has like all deltas good first turn proformance then drops like a brick do to loosening energy. The merage family has the same problem, now thats fine for an ambush/ interceptor but its not great for a dogfigher, explaining why 89% of kills in vetnam never saw there killer.

 

[njiiaf]

Consdering i can't think of a dogfight that happened above mach 1 I think that diagram rather proves my point.

Its not the best but the dcs devs do really pride themselves on acracy, I would recommend looking up a video on f-4 vs mig-21 to visualize this, the mig has like all deltas good first turn proformance then drops like a brick do to loosening energy. The merage family has the same problem, now thats fine for an ambush/ interceptor but its not great for a dogfigher, explaining why 89% of kills in vetnam never saw there killer.

There is no official DCS F-4 module yet (there's one in development but it's not even close to being released). There are mods and an AI example but these really don't follow the laws of physics.

Take a look at the diagram again. It shows that at 11km (30k ft.), the MiG has a higher sustained turn rate below Mach 1.2. Above 1.2 and the Phantom starts to out-rate the MiG, but those speeds are really uncommon.

 

[CV12Hornet]

If it's not too much of a hassle I'd also like to discuss the Super Sabre in this thread. I have a bit of a soft spot for this aircraft and on paper it had the potential to be a decent performer. After all, it was heavily based on the Sabre, which was a fantastic design, and built by a highly reputable company. But it turned out to be a bit of a dud and was mediocre in everything but ground attack while also being extremely unreliable and dangerous to fly.

Was it just too heavy to be a good air superiority fighter? What could they have done otherwise to change that?

It just seems like the USAF was at a sizeable disadvantage with its transitional mid-fifties fighters against their Soviet contemporaries. And I know the MiG-19 had some major flaws like extremely short legs and poor engine reliability, but it seems to be substantially better than the F100 in air-to-air (at least on paper).

Weight wasn't really the problem with the Super Sabre - the Crusader had the same thrust to weight but much higher performance. I suspect the aerodynamics were the bigger problem - multiple other J57 fighters, most notably the F-102 and F5D, needed area ruling and in the Skylancer's case a new, thinner wing, to reach supersonic speeds in level flight. Certainly multiple aircraft either got or were proposed to get thinner wings to reduce drag.

The F-107 illustrates the kind of work that would've been needed to make the Super Sabre a truly high-end air superiority machine, and even that design is compromised by the need to be a low-level nuclear bomber, such as the small wings and top-mounted air intake.

 

[datafuser]

F-104 tactics.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-4s-for-air-defence-and-other-oddball-ideas.39553/#post-537608

 

[Cjc]

Consdering i can't think of a dogfight that happened above mach 1 I think that diagram rather proves my point.

Its not the best but the dcs devs do really pride themselves on acracy, I would recommend looking up a video on f-4 vs mig-21 to visualize this, the mig has like all deltas good first turn proformance then drops like a brick do to loosening energy. The merage family has the same problem, now thats fine for an ambush/ interceptor but its not great for a dogfigher, explaining why 89% of kills in vetnam never saw there killer.

There is no official DCS F-4 module yet (there's one in development but it's not even close to being released). There are mods and an AI example but these really don't follow the laws of physics.

Take a look at the diagram again. It shows that at 11km (30k ft.), the MiG has a higher sustained turn rate below Mach 1.2. Above 1.2 and the Phantom starts to out-rate the MiG, but those speeds are really uncommon.

Your right i did miss read that chart, but you do really have to keep in mind its a chart on 11km on the first turn. deltas always give a false impression of manuvbilty do to great first turns but they lose energy rapidly on every subsequent turn and when you consder how close they already are then you see that the f-4 rapidly gains huge turning advantages after the first. thats why every frount facing fight whent to the f-4, most neutral fights and even a lot of disadvantage fights (they could get fast enough to get distance) whent to the f-4 when you break it down (difanceses in polite training also helped but if f-4 manuvbilty was an issue you would see these numbers a lot more even then this).

 

[BB1984]

I don't think people realize just how poor the F-104's maneuverability was. Or what 'boom-and-zoom' tactics really mean. It doesn't mean just pulling up into the vertical and diving back down, or flying away for 10 seconds and returning. It means you need to accelerate to high mach and very high altitude and extend away from your bandit by enough of a distance that he doesn't get a fox 2 or gunshot on you as soon as you turn around. It requires a decent amount of preparation, coordination with wingmen, high SA, and generally favorable conditions to pull off properly.

. . . .

All of this is to say that while these tactics can work, especially against older, subsonic fighters, it can be a downright headache to it pull it off properly. And that's against aircraft that should be obsolete against yours. If you are engaging MiG-21s, you will have such a disadvantage in sustained and instantaneous performance that you will need to stay above 600 knots and very high altitudes just to survive. I don't know how familiar you all are with modern dogfighting, but most merges will happen at 450-500 knots and by the time any one aircraft is in a position for a reliable kill you may be down to 200 or even lower.

"boom and zoom" is one term, but I'd prefer "fighting in the vertical" (vs. a horizontal fight, i.e., sustained turn). Barrel Roll, High Yo Yo, and Lag Displacement Roll are all examples where energy tactics, in the vertical, are used to avoid having to simply turn with an opponent. These require neither high mach nor high altitude.

These tactics do take a higher level of pilot training than simply turning hard, but the USAF has had a comfort level with them since WWII in the Pacific, in particular. When faced with the Zero, neither the US Navy nor the AAF tried to produce planes that would turn with the Japanese fighter; they wanted planes that had speed and altitude advantages that could be converted, via good tactics, into superior dogfight performance.

None of this is saying that a good turn rate isn't desirable, especially in the days of early AAM and gun fighting and an F-104 pilot that got pulled into a turning fight would be in a bad spot, but the thinking behind the F-104's design (as an F-86 successor) was solid and was vindicated in the Featherduster trials, where F-104s emerged as the superior air to air fighter vs. a variety of other US models despite poor turning performance.

 

[Yellow Palace]

These tactics do take a higher level of pilot training than simply turning hard, but the USAF has had a comfort level with them since WWII in the Pacific, in particular.

This is where I think the F-104 scenario has the edge. It's not that it's a stellar fighter - it isn't, although it's not a total disaster either. It's that a USAF which buys F-104s is a USAF that views air-to-air combat as something worth training pilots for.

 

[Cjc]

I don't think people realize just how poor the F-104's maneuverability was. Or what 'boom-and-zoom' tactics really mean. It doesn't mean just pulling up into the vertical and diving back down, or flying away for 10 seconds and returning. It means you need to accelerate to high mach and very high altitude and extend away from your bandit by enough of a distance that he doesn't get a fox 2 or gunshot on you as soon as you turn around. It requires a decent amount of preparation, coordination with wingmen, high SA, and generally favorable conditions to pull off properly.

. . . .

All of this is to say that while these tactics can work, especially against older, subsonic fighters, it can be a downright headache to it pull it off properly. And that's against aircraft that should be obsolete against yours. If you are engaging MiG-21s, you will have such a disadvantage in sustained and instantaneous performance that you will need to stay above 600 knots and very high altitudes just to survive. I don't know how familiar you all are with modern dogfighting, but most merges will happen at 450-500 knots and by the time any one aircraft is in a position for a reliable kill you may be down to 200 or even lower.

"boom and zoom" is one term, but I'd prefer "fighting in the vertical" (vs. a horizontal fight, i.e., sustained turn). Barrel Roll, High Yo Yo, and Lag Displacement Roll are all examples where energy tactics, in the vertical, are used to avoid having to simply turn with an opponent. These require neither high mach nor high altitude.

These tactics do take a higher level of pilot training than simply turning hard, but the USAF has had a comfort level with them since WWII in the Pacific, in particular. When faced with the Zero, neither the US Navy nor the AAF tried to produce planes that would turn with the Japanese fighter; they wanted planes that had speed and altitude advantages that could be converted, via good tactics, into superior dogfight performance.

None of this is saying that a good turn rate isn't desirable, especially in the days of early AAM and gun fighting and an F-104 pilot that got pulled into a turning fight would be in a bad spot, but the thinking behind the F-104's design (as an F-86 successor) was solid and was vindicated in the Featherduster trials, where F-104s emerged as the superior air to air fighter vs. a variety of other US models despite poor turning performance.

You do realize that was a very common tactic ( most common infact) tactics the f-4 useded against migs, and its only useful if you can see the migs coming, non of that helps against mig ambushes, what is the issue that needs fixing.

These tactics do take a higher level of pilot training than simply turning hard, but the USAF has had a comfort level with them since WWII in the Pacific, in particular.

This is where I think the F-104 scenario has the edge. It's not that it's a stellar fighter - it isn't, although it's not a total disaster either. It's that a USAF which buys F-104s is a USAF that views air-to-air combat as something worth training pilots for.

Thing is im not convinced it was a training issue and the lack of air to air training has been way over emphasized by hindsight bibliography, when the f-4 faced the mig in a dogfight it won a lot more times then it lost, the issue was mig ambushes and that was solved with teaball and AWACS, leading to better kill ratios then in Korea. Honestly from what I found the training issues had far more to do with missile handling then tactics, which makes sense considering all the ww2 and korean vets still kicking around in the force structure.

 

[njiiaf]

Your right i did miss read that chart, but you do really have to keep in mind its a chart on 11km on the first turn. deltas always give a false impression of manuvbilty do to great first turns but they lose energy rapidly on every subsequent turn and when you consder how close they already are then you see that the f-4 rapidly gains huge turning advantages after the first. thats why every frount facing fight whent to the f-4, most neutral fights and even a lot of disadvantage fights (they could get fast enough to get distance) whent to the f-4 when you break it down (difanceses in polite training also helped but if f-4 manuvbilty was an issue you would see these numbers a lot more even then this).

You are still reading the chart wrong. It is illustrating the sustained turn rates of these 3 aircraft, i.e., how hard they can turn without losing energy. And it shows quite clearly that the MiG-21 can sustain it's energy better than the Phantom at any speed below 1.2 mach.

At low altitudes, this would be a different story. The Phantom's thrust to weight might give it an advantage, although it will probably still need to stay fast. You have to remember that this chart is showing the performance at 30,000ft(!).

 

[1635yankee]

If I remember, the problem with USAF and USN/USMC air combat in Vietnam was that US fighter pilots did not train for fighter-fighter combat with the exception of the pilots in the F8U squadrons. Fixing that problem in time to get aircraft designed for clear-air, fighter-fighter combat would have required changes in philosophies among the USAF, USN, and USMC aviation authorities.

The F8U succeeded -- compared to the other US fighters -- less because it was a great dogfighter than because its pilots were trained for that kind of combat. In some ways, the F8U was problematic: limited (as in approximately no) rearward visibility and poor departure characteristics.

As for which fighter, I think the Lockheed Lancer is an interesting possibility.

 

[nintender-dorfin]

F-5 + J79

 

[BlackBat242]

I find it curious that all the talk in this thread is of the NV's Mig-21s... when about 20% of the US aircraft lost to NV Migs were lost to MiG-17s!

The MiG-17s were normally the ones executing head-on shots, while MiG-21s preferred rear attacks.

This list of NV aces (according to NV records) lists 4 -17 aces and 13 -21 aces. The number in parenthesis are what the USAF records support, as are the types in the comments..

Vietnamese Aces - MiG-17 and MiG-21 pilots

Vietnamese MiG Aces of the Vietnam War

acepilots.com

 

[isayyo2]

I find it curious that all the talk in this thread is of the NV's Mig-21s... when about 20% of the US aircraft lost to NV Migs were lost to MiG-17s!

Could something akin to a F-86H, FJ-3/4, or F-9J with Sidewinders be a reasonable counter?

 

[Scott Kenny]

If we're talking ideal, with hindsight? You want a decent radar, for detection and ranging, but an armament focused on Sidewinders over Sparrows, and more than two. You want the Phantom's power, but better maneuverability. A reliable gun as a backup weapon.

The Super Tiger probably is the closest you're going to get of planes the US actually drew up - good handling, as noted; space for a radar; power to spare when fitted with the J79; and four pylons for Sidewinders. Range for escorting Thunderchiefs is the only potential problem, and between the J79's lower fuel consumption than the J65 and bobtdwarf's proposed new wing here that's probably a solvable problem - the Air Force doesn't need folding wings, after all.

Agreed on the outline.

Ah ok, I see the issue for Vietnam. Somewhat ironically, the italian Starfighters made room for a Sparrow capability by deleting the gun. Kind of funny to think the Phantom went the opposite way: born with Sparrows, added a gun later.
Wonder if a gun pod could be added to F-104S to get that lost capability back.

The F-104S fighter-bomber versions kept the gun, oddly enough.

So I'd really want a US-built F-104S fighter-bomber version, with the extra pylons but without the Sparrow radar. Tip tanks, 6x Sidewinders, and a belly tank for Vietnam escort missions. Honestly should give 4x kills per mission at 2x Sidewinders per kill and one kill with guns.

Honestly don't really get the f-104 love going on here. It was a decent enough interceptor, but only as a interceptor, as the Germans found out it is not exactly maneuverable. Honestly the f-4 was better in every consvable metric (both as a interceptor and as a fighter) thats why the usaf only bought >200 f-104s and thousands of f-4s, also why the f-104 is generally consdered 2ed gen and the f-4 third.

No, the USAF bought a small number of F-104s because they demanded every aircraft in the inventory be nuclear capable bombers and the F-104 was an interceptor first.

This is where I think the F-104 scenario has the edge. It's not that it's a stellar fighter - it isn't, although it's not a total disaster either. It's that a USAF which buys F-104s is a USAF that views air-to-air combat as something worth training pilots for.

This.

Operationally, have the F-104s fly well above the F-105 or F-4 raids, like Mustangs flying top cover over the B-17s. Any Korea pilots would be familiar with how to fly the F-104, it fights just like an F-86. Fight vertical, because if you get into a turning fight you're already dead.

Could something akin to a F-86H, FJ-3/4, or F-9J with Sidewinders be a reasonable counter?

No, not an F-86. .50cals are not effective at taking down MiG-17s. FJ3/4s have 20mm, that's the minimum effective caliber on jets.

Also, I question the ability of any of those aircraft to have the range to fly with the bombers due to early engines.

 

[tomo pauk]

FWIW, my pick for this will be the F-4 - a lot of power, ability to lug around a lot of weapons and fuel load and still perform, USA has money to buy them by shiploads, backseater can be an asset. Who cares if the MiG-17 can out-turn it, there is no point in playing to the enemy's advantage any more than there was a point to enter turning fights with the Zero with P-47 or F4U back in ww2.

 

[Cjc]

.



No, the USAF bought a small number of F-104s because they demanded every aircraft in the inventory be nuclear capable bombers and the F-104 was an interceptor first.



This.

Operationally, have the F-104s fly well above the F-105 or F-4 raids, like Mustangs flying top cover over the B-17s. Any Korea pilots would be familiar with how to fly the F-104, it fights just like an F-86. Fight vertical, because if you get into a turning fight you're already dead.


.

Except for the fact most usaf f-104 were variants that could infact drop nukes (thanks germany for paying for that) so that argument dosnt really hold water. There were few orders by the usaf because even the anti bomber absest air force didn't need a plane that specialized.

I don't think that tactic would work, this isn't ww2 the nva only need one good missile hit on the bomber and it's mission complete. then it can run or force the f-104 into a turning fight they know they can win.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Except for the fact most usaf f-104 were variants that could infact drop nukes (thanks germany for paying for that) so that argument dosnt really hold water. There were few orders by the usaf because even the anti bomber absest air force didn't need a plane that specialized.

Interceptor first, and quite frankly a terrible bomber.

I don't think that tactic would work, this isn't ww2 the nva only need one good missile hit on the bomber and it's mission complete. then it can run or force the f-104 into a turning fight they know they can win.

Pretty sure the F-15s fight some planes vertically, because they can out turn the Eagles. (Honestly, a LOT of planes can out-turn Eagles, they only sustain about 7.5gees).

Most NVA planes only had cannons for armament. The MiG-21s would be the exception for that, and you'd have good warnings about them coming to play with some AEW at work.

 

[Archibald]

F-5 + J79

Or YJ101... half a F-20, half a F-17 - can't be a bad airplane.

 

[Cjc]

Interceptor first, and quite frankly a terrible bomber.



Pretty sure the F-15s fight some planes vertically, because they can out turn the Eagles. (Honestly, a LOT of planes can out-turn Eagles, they only sustain about 7.5gees).

Most NVA planes only had cannons for armament. The MiG-21s would be the exception for that, and you'd have good warnings about them coming to play with some AEW at work.

F-15 try to stay away and missile planes down, which they can do because there missiles are several generations newer, that's way non have been lost in combat, because dogfighting is risky and there hasn't been a need to ever take that risk yet.

If the usaf was useing good aew then why the hell are we useing f-104s? F-4 won dogfights at like 80+% rate when given even >1 minute warning, like I talked about earlier it was enemy boom and zoom tactics against unsuspecting f-4 that caused all the issues in the first place.

 

[Scott Kenny]

No. Not Falcons. Unless you can find a way to give them greater flexibility and unlimited on-rack cooling time, you're just inflicting the same problem on the Fang as the F-4D had, without the potential benefit of a backseater to wrestle with the missile warmup. By the time you've sorted out those issues and that of a direct hit being required, what you have is XAIM-4H, but the story I remember reading is that Robin Olds was so disgusted at the Falcon (for having denied him a first missile ace shot) that he wasn't going to give it another chance and did everything in his power to get the missile sh**canned.

Can't say I blame him.

 

[F-2]

Can't say I blame him.

It could have been drastically improved though

AAM-2 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Rule of cool]

Is it technologically possible to build an F15 style fighter a decade earlier? I would have thought such a plane would be dependent on mature(ish) high thrust turbofans as well as aerodynamics sufficiently advanced to not need things like BLC or VG.

Probably the most primitive (for want of a better word) plane that would fit the bill would be the Mirage F1, which entered service in 1973. I think the US could knock up something similar for sqn service by 1965 or so if they had the foresight.

 

[F-2]

Is it technologically possible to build an F15 style fighter a decade earlier? I would have thought such a plane would be dependent on mature(ish) high thrust turbofans as well as aerodynamics sufficiently advanced to not need things like BLC or VG.

Probably the most primitive (for want of a better word) plane that would fit the bill would be the Mirage F1, which entered service in 1973. I think the US could knock up something similar for sqn service by 1965 or so if they had the foresight.

A-5 and the Avro Arrow had a primitive fly by wire in the late 50s, A-5 also had a proto hud. Something like AWG-10 or ASG-18 if it’s big enough. The real issue is as Enzo Ferrari put it “Aerodynamics are for people who can’t design engines.” What’s it gunna use, J58s? J93? Probably the only real viable engines would be the TF30 or Spey.

 

[tomo pauk]

Is it technologically possible to build an F15 style fighter a decade earlier? I would have thought such a plane would be dependent on mature(ish) high thrust turbofans as well as aerodynamics sufficiently advanced to not need things like BLC or VG.

See MiG-25, just make it for Mach 2.2-2.3 turn of speed instead of almost Mach 3? Ie. light alloys instead of steel, 'normal' engines instead of the very high speed types, just remember to have the cockpit a bit higher (easier to do on the design for lower speeds).
Or, kinda-sorta short A-5 Vigilante - rumor has it that MiG used it as the inspiration for MiG-25.

Probably the most primitive (for want of a better word) plane that would fit the bill would be the Mirage F1, which entered service in 1973. I think the US could knock up something similar for sqn service by 1965 or so if they had the foresight.

Grumman Super Tiger is/was a star of many what-if scenarios.

 

[Desertfox]

There is also the F5D Skylancer... maybe in keeps the Sparrow II alive as well.

 

[Rule of cool]

A-5 and the Avro Arrow had a primitive fly by wire in the late 50s, A-5 also had a proto hud. Something like AWG-10 or ASG-18 if it’s big enough. The real issue is as Enzo Ferrari put it “Aerodynamics are for people who can’t design engines.” What’s it gunna use, J58s? J93? Probably the only real viable engines would be the TF30 or Spey.

Alas for poor Enzo the most beautiful racing car ever made (330P4) was defeated by a clunker engine out of a NASCAR! That said Ferrari did make a 620hp 6.2 litre V12 for Can Am in 1968.

I agree that the TF30 or Spey/TF41 would be the best engine for a mid 60s air superiority fighter, others are of too early conception and the J93 is too specialized as a Mach 3 engine.

The A5 is probably a reasonable airframe concept, nice big wings but it would need plenty of power to recover the speed the tight turns wash off.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

If you want a better air superiority aircraft than the F-4 in Vietnam, I don't see much alternative to the J79. Decent thrust to weight for its era. TF30 / Spey are fine for multirole / strike aircraft or interceptors but not ideal for dedicated air superiority.

You could take the AWG-10 radar, J79 engines, and make a more optimal airframe design for AA combat around it. Something like this early F-15 concept. Add in some small wing root strakes, job's a good 'un.

This would probably require no MacNamara, and a USAF decision on an air-to-air optimised fighter WAY before its time had come in the real time line.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A-5 and the Avro Arrow had a primitive fly by wire in the late 50s, A-5 also had a proto hud. Something like AWG-10 or ASG-18 if it’s big enough. The real issue is as Enzo Ferrari put it “Aerodynamics are for people who can’t design engines.” What’s it gunna use, J58s? J93? Probably the only real viable engines would be the TF30 or Spey.

TF30 we know is a dog and cannot handle airflow weirdness resulting from basic fighter maneuvers.

Really looks like afterburning Spey is our option.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Spey performed worse than J79 on UK Phantoms except on takeoff from carriers. J79 is our option.