(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/during-the-1960s-from-top-to-bottom-of-the-photograph-an-american-picture-id104410943?k=6&m=104410943&s=612x612&w=0&h=TbZnVU5G3tJSBZsKt2NS8bGHU3KR-DqfJ150gFDYtf8=) | Hey everyone, Recently I've been exploring Cold War air combat and I'm having trouble coming to any satisfactory conclusions for the early Cold War period. The scenario is fairly straightforward. What's the best land-based air superiority option for a medium-sized nation in the years 1956-1968? Keep to mostly historical options and loadouts. I love the CF-105 Arrow, F5D Skylancer, and F11F-1F Super Tiger as much as anyone, but that's not really what I'm looking at. I'm sticking to in-service types and largely in-service configurations. No F-4B Phantom with an internal gun, thin-wing Javelin, or Hawker Hunter with refueling probe, for instance. Think of these options as complete weapon systems or weapon packages. No specific threat environment, East/West alignment, or terrain to consider. Aerial refueling is a plus, but in no way a requirement. More range is a plus, but no specific figure to consider. These are not to be operated from a carrier, so that is a superfluous feature. Ground attack capability is a plus, but not the focus here. Fleet size would be around 100 aircraft. Why 1956-1968? Before the advent of the AIM-9B in 1956, it's a pretty simple evaluation of maneuverability, gun armament, and speed. After 1968, you have the F-4E Phantom, which gives you all the missiles you could want without sacrificing an internal gun, speed, or range. It had competition, but it really was a game-changer. Air defense/superiority/dominance is really the only thing being evaluated here. Possible threats can be anything from B-47s/Tu-16s to F-4Bs/MiG-21s (and everything in between). Consider how your proposed pick would fare in aerial combat of that era. 1956 Suez, 1958 Taiwan Strait, 1964 Vietnam, 1965 Indo-Pakistan, 1967 Six-Day War, etc. Cheers, Logan |
F-6A (F4D) Skyray (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F4D_Skyray) seems to have been overlooked or ignored.
I've read that the EE Lightning was very maneuverable, besting most western fighters of the time and only got beaten when the F-16 came into service. Read a report where the RAF tested it against a Spitfire, it was to test it's suitability's against Indonesian P-51's during that confrontation.
... Despite what you claim, Jon, ...
... Despite what you claim, Jon, ...
[whisper]I think you mean "Logan", mate![/whisper]
...The F-5 might lack top speed, compared with some other contenders. On the other hand, its size made it hard to detect, so they could more often take the opponent by surprise. Agility was good too.
I am surprised that you've not included the F-5 in your list. It was cheap, easily available and quite a good fighter. It could carry as many missiles as the others (four) and with some tinkering I don't doubt it could carry more on multiple launchers. It's guns were reliable. What it lacked was a good radar. It's range was also a bit limited without tanks. It was quite a good air-superiority fighter and that was why it excelled in the Aggressor role.
[Mirage, Lightning, F-8, Draken, F-5]
What was the Mirage like in the following ways:
A. Instantaneous and sustained turn rates
“Well, not very good at instantaneous- but better in sustained turns as with everything else, with the nose down.”
B. Agility
“Hmmmm, next question please.”
C. Climb rate
“Good enough in those years.”
the R.530 had interchangeable homing heads - IR and Semi-Active Radar homing.
If we only wish to look at the pure air-to-air format though, I would offer these points to consider:
- Are you only talking in a Defensive environment or in an Offensive environment? If purely defensive than your interceptors (F-102, F-106, EE. Lightning etc) are more balanced in that aspects such as endurance - both in terms of fuel (how long can you stay in the air) and weapons compliment (how many 'arrows do you have in your quiver) - become less of an issue. If however, you want to achieve air superiority over an enemy's territory (i.e. offensive air superiority) than aspects such as range and weapons compliment become more important. This situation would potentially give platforms such as the F-4 more points, especially if aerial refuelling is taken out of the mix;
- Aspects such as supersonic capability also become less of a determiner if one considers that for the period being looked at ('56 - 68), many opponents were still subsonic (e.g. flying things such as Sabres, MiG-15/17s etc) so whilst having supersonic performance does offer some advantages, once you got down to turning and burning it becomes less of an advantage and certainly chews into fuel reserves. In fact, one might argue that supersonic performance is more beneficial in the defensive role than the offensive role given the impact on endurance.
My choice would still be the gunless, AIM-9B and AIM-7C armed F-4B/C. Yes, the missiles were not much to write home about, but the tactics were the biggest failure of all. If you're trying to turn with a MiG-17/Sabre/Hunter in a F-4, or firing any early BVR missiles at point-blank range, you're doing it wrong. The F-4 had the speed to disengage and only accept advantageous fights against subsonic opponents (or if you're feeling bold, enough thrust to take the fight into vertical), most importantly enough fuel to exploit this, and a real BVR missile. Yes, in slow speeds the MiG-21 was more agile, but the trick was again to not get dragged into a stallfight; in high speeds, there was no noticeable difference.
The scenario is fairly straightforward. What's the best land-based air superiority option for a medium-sized nation in the years 1956-1968?
My choice would still be the gunless, AIM-9B and AIM-7C armed F-4B/C. Yes, the missiles were not much to write home about, but the tactics were the biggest failure of all. If you're trying to turn with a MiG-17/Sabre/Hunter in a F-4, or firing any early BVR missiles at point-blank range, you're doing it wrong. The F-4 had the speed to disengage and only accept advantageous fights against subsonic opponents (or if you're feeling bold, enough thrust to take the fight into vertical), most importantly enough fuel to exploit this, and a real BVR missile. Yes, in slow speeds the MiG-21 was more agile, but the trick was again to not get dragged into a stallfight; in high speeds, there was no noticeable difference.
Genesis
In 1968, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Thomas Hinman Moorer ordered Captain Frank Ault to research the failings of the U.S. air-to-air missiles used in combat in the skies over North Vietnam. Operation Rolling Thunder, which lasted from 2 March 1965 to 1 November 1968, ultimately saw almost 1,000 U.S. aircraft losses in about one million sorties.[5] Rolling Thunder became the Rorschach test for the Navy and Air Force, which drew nearly opposite conclusions. The USAF concluded that its air losses were primarily due to unobserved MiG attacks from the rear, and were, therefore, a technology problem. The service responded by upgrading its F-4 Phantom II fleet, installing an internal M61 Vulcan cannon (replacing the gun pods carried under the aircraft's belly by Air Force Phantom units, such as the 366th Fighter Wing), developing improved airborne radar systems, and working to solve the targeting problems of the AIM-9 and AIM-7 air-to-air missiles.
In May 1968, the Navy published the "Ault Report", which concluded that the problem stemmed from inadequate air-crew training in air combat maneuvering (ACM). This was welcomed by the F-8 Crusader community, who had been lobbying for an ACM training program ever since Rolling Thunder began. The Ault Report recommended the establishment of an "Advanced Fighter Weapons School" to revive and disseminate community fighter expertise throughout the fleet. CNO Moorer concurred.
Fighter Weapons School
The United States Navy Fighter Weapons School was established on 3 March 1969, at Naval Air Station Miramar, California. The school was formed using many F-4 and F-8 pilots as instructors, and placed under the control of the VF-121 "Pacemakers" an F-4 Phantom-equipped Replacement Air Group (RAG) unit. The new school received relatively scant funding, resources, and built its syllabus from scratch. To support its operations, it borrowed aircraft from its parent unit and other Miramar-based units, such as composite squadron VC-7 and Fighter Squadron One Two Six VF-126.
Its objective was to develop, refine and teach aerial dogfight tactics and techniques to selected fleet air crews, using the concept of dissimilar air combat training, DACT. DACT uses stand-in aircraft to realistically replicate expected enemy aircraft and is widely used in air arms the world over. At that time, the predominant enemy aircraft were the Russian-built transonic MiG-17 'Fresco' and the supersonic MiG-21 'Fishbed'.
Topgun initially operated the A-4 Skyhawk and borrowed USAF T-38 Talons to simulate the flying characteristics of the MiG-17 and MiG-21, respectively. The school also made use of Marine-crewed A-6 Intruders and USAF F-106 aircraft when available. Later, the T-38 was replaced by the F-5E and F-5F Tiger II.
One British writer claimed that the early school was influenced by a group of a dozen flying instructors from the British Fleet Air Arm aboard HMS Ark Royal, who were graduates of the Royal Navy's intense Air Warfare Instructors School in Lossiemouth, Scotland. However, an earlier incarnation of Topgun, the U.S. Navy Fleet Air Gunnery Units, or FAGU, had provided air combat training for Naval Aviators from the early 1950s until 1960, when a doctrinal shift, brought on by advances in missile, radar, and fire control technology, contributed to the belief that the era of the classic dogfight was over, leading to their disestablishment. The pilots who were part of the initial cadre of instructors at Topgun had experience as students from FAGU.
[Mirage, Lightning, F-8, Draken, F-5]
Thanks for the response, Rickshaw! Let's unpack it, from simplest to most complex. I love the F-5, especially the F-5E. It was a fantastic plane and—I think quite underrated. Had it existed in this timeframe, that'd unquestionably be my choice, but the F-5E didn't enter service until 1973 at the earliest. Way too late. Even the F-5A didn't enter service until 1964, which doesn't give it a whole lot of time before the F-4E comes online. Same issue as the Mirage IIIO that M.A.D was mentioning. On top of all that, the F-5A was really a fighter-bomber. More comparable to the Mirage V, G.91, or A-4. Great, efficient little attack or multirole plane, but not really air superiority until the F-5E.
([url]http://www.the-northrop-f-5-enthusiast-page.info/Pictures/Northrop/94989plusTwoAA.jpg[/url])
As for the Lightning, it never carried Sidewinders at any time in any configuration, did it?
I'm convinced that the Firestreak and Red Top (especially) were better than early Sidewinders in a number of ways, but I do worry about their ability to be employed against maneuvering fighters in close combat. The AIM-9B is the only AAM of 1960 that I'd be willing to bet my life on, and I haven't yet come across anything yet to disabuse me of that notion. No matter what, though, the Lightning is out of consideration because—until the F.6—you had to choose between fuel and guns. The problem is that you need both. The F.6 doesn't enter service until 1965-66, and by then you're almost at the F-4E, so what's the point? It's really not a contender.
The Draken's radar issues were fairly common for the day, as you note, but the earlier model had the same radar as the Mirage III, so you can't rate it any lower. The later Swedish radars were superior to the French one, too. In short, I don't know that radar performance was a particular strong suit of the Draken, but once they were installed, I don't see how you can rate it any lower than the Mirage III in that category.
You say the F-8 was a dog in many ways, care to expound on that? That's not what most of the pilot accounts I've come across say. They definitely liked the power that came with the later -16 and -20 versions of the J57, but most of the complaints seem to deal with the power available in tricky carrier landings and takeoffs in the tropics, a situation that it's hard to compare with the land-based fighters on this list. The lack of a BVRAAM in that day wasn't much of a disadvantage since the ones that were around were pretty much terrible. The ammunition feed was a real issue, and I think the biggest letdown it has compared to the Mirage III and its excellent 30mm DEFA guns with plenty of ammo.
Finally, mind pointing to some of the accounts of the Mirage IIIO vs US F-5 Aggressors? I can imagine the Mirage III may have some advantage at high speeds, potentially, but that'd be about it, I'd think. Israeli pilots seemed to rate the Mirage III as comparable to the MiG-21, with the Mirage III having the advantage in the horizontal, at high speeds, and at low level. They generally rated the MiG-21 as better in the vertical, high altitude, and low speeds. I've read similar things from Indian and Pakistani pilots, too. In fact, Pakistani pilots that flew both the MiG-19 and Mirage said the MiG-19 was far better in the horizontal plane than the Mirage and would try to get the Mirage in a maneuvering fight in DACT, where they knew they had the upper hand.
Furthermore, US aggressor pilots flew both Kfirs and F-5Es and considered the F-5E to be the more maneuverable of the two. In fact, the Kfir was chosen because its handling characteristics were similar to the MiG-23 (aka not agile).
You're forgetting that the USN & USAF went to a gun-armed F-4 (& the USN created the Naval Fighter Weapons School) after lessons learned in Vietnam, where the lack of training & guns had been a serious issue."No."
What's the best land-based air superiority option for a medium-sized nation in the years 1956-1968?
No specific threat environment, East/West alignment, or terrain to consider. Aerial refueling is a plus, but in no way a requirement. More range is a plus, but no specific figure to consider. These are not to be operated from a carrier, so that is a superfluous feature. Ground attack capability is a plus, but not the focus here. Fleet size would be around 100 aircraft.
I am always careful where it comes to pilot accounts. Ego is not a dirty word to most of them. I've read two accounts of the RAAF's encounter with the F-5 with the Mirage and it occurred way back in the 1980s. The Mirage pilots claimed they defeated the Aggressors when they came on a tour of Oceania. Now, they may have had a bad day or they may have let the Mirage's win, deliberately. However, the accounts I have read appeared to back up that the superior tactics of the Mirages were what defeated the F-5s, not any inherent flying abilities of the aircraft. They were published in Australian magazines back in the day, so they aren't available any more.
It might have been that the F-5 pilots were just a little cocky and suffered as a consequence? I think one of the problems they had was that they flew like they believed Soviet pilots flew - with limited creative input from the pilots and a lot of GC input? The RAAF flew more creatively than they were used to as well? Who knows?
As I have suggested, the Soviet method of piloting, in those days, didn't allow for much creativity. You took off, you carried out your interception, you fought, you landed (if you survived) and all the time were under ground control direction. After Vietnam, the Soviets realised it wasn't working and started their own "Top Gun" school and loosened up their control of the pilots. Training is always the key which wins the battles. If you train hard you have a better edge than the person who doesn't. The Mirage was a good interceptor which got turned into a good fighter-bomber. It wasn't a super-plane - no aircraft is. Some are better than others some worse. It is the pilot and their abilities which are the winner.
Instead of buying a super-plane, I'd go for a smaller aircraft, such as the F-5 or the Hunter - both cheaper and more easily replaceable. I'd concentrate on the pilot's training. Purchase a trainer version of your fighter and teach your pilots how to fly by the seat of their pants. It might not win you any battles but it will ensure you don't lose many. Build a ground defence radar network and invest in AEW aircraft. Make sure it is nearly impossible for your enemy to attack you without being detected. Train your fighter pilots and use the radars to your advantage.
I think the J32B Lansen could also be a nice choice, with its radar, 4 AIM-9 and 4 30mm ADENs. Good range and a second set of eyes in the back as a plus. Unfortunately I have no idea about its maneuverability though I've read somewhere it could outclimb the Hunter and hold its own against it, as long as the fight was kept in the vertical.
Because of the rapid development in capabilities in this era, I think you really need to consider when said nation acquires. If it was towards the start (say pre-1960) than the subsonic (Sabre etc) or 1st Gen supersonic (F-100/MiG-19) would have to be the leading candidates. If however, you want to consider a latter acquisition (post 1960 and especially towards the latter '60s) than platforms such as the F-4 Phantom and others become more viable. To try to select something for right across this period is too difficult otherwise.
Again, I think some more context is required here. Are we talking about a nation with a definite threat/competitor at hand or just a run of the mill country. For instance, a selection for New Zealand would potentially be different than say a Israel. are they likely to go up against a peer force or not? Are they likely to be purely defensive or just as likely to go on the offensive. As alluded to in my last post, a pure defensive role may point you more towards an interceptor whereas an offensive role (or "taking the fight to the enemy") will favour something with more range/weapons compliment.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5EHqXYeaR0g/WaLVVQhUoYI/AAAAAAAAwCc/pZLgIvsBu2YbRx51u_LOkZToYl5L7LY2wCKgBGAs/s1600/Saab%2BJ%2B35A%252C%2Bdo%2Besquadr%25C3%25A3o%2BF%2B13%2Bem%2B1960%2B%2528note-se%2Ba%2Bcusta%2Bfuselagem%2Btraseira%2529.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5EHqXYeaR0g/WaLVVQhUoYI/AAAAAAAAwCc/pZLgIvsBu2YbRx51u_LOkZToYl5L7LY2wCKgBGAs/s1600/Saab%2BJ%2B35A%252C%2Bdo%2Besquadr%25C3%25A3o%2BF%2B13%2Bem%2B1960%2B%2528note-se%2Ba%2Bcusta%2Bfuselagem%2Btraseira%2529.jpg)
Bill Gunston had no doubt: for him, Draken was the best.
Instead of buying a super-plane, I'd go for a smaller aircraft, such as the F-5 or the Hunter - both cheaper and more easily replaceable. I'd concentrate on the pilot's training. Purchase a trainer version of your fighter and teach your pilots how to fly by the seat of their pants. It might not win you any battles but it will ensure you don't lose many. Build a ground defence radar network and invest in AEW aircraft. Make sure it is nearly impossible for your enemy to attack you without being detected. Train your fighter pilots and use the radars to your advantage.
Totally valid choice, especially if you upgrade the Hunters to use Sidewinders. Otherwise, they may be at a disadvantage against opponents armed with AIM-9Bs or K-13s.
As would a Sea Vixen, Javelin or Scimitar...
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5EHqXYeaR0g/WaLVVQhUoYI/AAAAAAAAwCc/pZLgIvsBu2YbRx51u_LOkZToYl5L7LY2wCKgBGAs/s1600/Saab%2BJ%2B35A%252C%2Bdo%2Besquadr%25C3%25A3o%2BF%2B13%2Bem%2B1960%2B%2528note-se%2Ba%2Bcusta%2Bfuselagem%2Btraseira%2529.jpg)
Bill Gunston had no doubt: for him, Draken was the best.
I would be very interested in Bill Gunston's analogy of why he viewed the Draken "was the best" if you have it Carlos!
If you do, could you PM it to me please?
M.A.D
I know you said land based but I have always had a soft spot for the FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury. It was fast, agile and very long ranged, with cannon instead of MGs, four or six under wing stores stations it could carry two, four (or even six) sidewinders, drop tanks, buddy refuelling pod etc. As is it was a very capable aircraft that could have easily provided the sort of long effective service that the Sabre, Hunter, Super Mystere, Mig 17 and 19 did.Since the FJ-4 and FJ-4B used Curtiss-Wright produced Sapphires (J65s) (indeed, Fj-2 and on did), I would imagine that an Avon-powered one would be reasonably simple to produce. NAA-Columbus had already studied a FJ-4/F-86K combination as their entry for the Canadian competition won by the F2H Banshee. Upgrading to a dry 200-series or 300-series Avon would be a minimal problem, if any. I could see replacing the 4x 20mm cannon with 2x 30mm ADEN but don't think that would be too major a change (Israelis swapped out 20mm cannon for 30mm DEFA cannon on their A-4s).
A very minor WIFF (outside the scope of the topic sorry) its carrier gear could have been deleted reducing weight providing either improved performance or space and weight for other equipment. For instance there could have been a Mk33 Avon Sabre based on the FJ-4 with ADEN cannon and a 10,000lb thrust 200 series Avon.
The other thought is the F-86D/K/L but a Wiff would be needed for sidewinder and guns.
Ultimate Wiff, CAC Mk34+, an FJ-4B derived land based airframe with a 200 series Avon, F-86D/K/L style radar nose, Sidewinder and Firestreak and possibly an afterburner to give it a supersonic dash capability. Yep know its a wiff but its a wiff using off the shelf options by an organisation that had already done just that to produce the original Avon Sabre.
Since the FJ-4 and FJ-4B used Curtiss-Wright produced Sapphires (J65s) (indeed, Fj-2 and on did), I would imagine that an Avon-powered one would be reasonably simple to produce. NAA-Columbus had already studied a FJ-4/F-86K combination as their entry for the Canadian competition won by the F2H Banshee. Upgrading to a dry 200-series or 300-series Avon would be a minimal problem, if any. I could see replacing the 4x 20mm cannon with 2x 30mm ADEN but don't think that would be too major a change (Israelis swapped out 20mm cannon for 30mm DEFA cannon on their A-4s).
Very interesting and probably belongs in another thread but I would love to find out more about the FJ-4/F-86K combo concept.What I know about it I got from a former co-worker who was at NAA-Columbus from the early 1950's to when they closed.
There were CAC plans for a four ADEN evolved Avon Sabre
It was why the UK allowed Australia to purchase the Canberra bomber way back in 1951 - to allow us to carry UK Atomic Bombs to southern China.
It was why the UK allowed Australia to purchase the Canberra bomber way back in 1951 - to allow us to carry UK Atomic Bombs to southern China.
I think you will find that there was more to it than that...
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5EHqXYeaR0g/WaLVVQhUoYI/AAAAAAAAwCc/pZLgIvsBu2YbRx51u_LOkZToYl5L7LY2wCKgBGAs/s1600/Saab%2BJ%2B35A%252C%2Bdo%2Besquadr%25C3%25A3o%2BF%2B13%2Bem%2B1960%2B%2528note-se%2Ba%2Bcusta%2Bfuselagem%2Btraseira%2529.jpg)
Bill Gunston had no doubt: for him, Draken was the best.
I would be very interested in Bill Gunston's analogy of why he viewed the Draken "was the best" if you have it Carlos!
If you do, could you PM it to me please?
M.A.D
https://www.amazon.es/Fighters-Fifties-Bill-Gunston/dp/0850594634/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515701218&sr=8-1&keywords=fighters+fifties+gunston (https://www.amazon.es/Fighters-Fifties-Bill-Gunston/dp/0850594634/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515701218&sr=8-1&keywords=fighters+fifties+gunston)
'... one wonders why this amazingly cost/effective family should hardly have been considered by the flood of air forces that instead bought the F-104, F-5, or Mirage. Even today the ability to make automatic all-weather interceptions at Mach 2, drop 9,000 lb of bombs, or fly any kind of electronic-warfare or recon mission, and then vanish into the obscurity of farmland where there is no evident airfield, is not exactly common.'
This is just a quote from J35 article of mentioned book.
Very interesting and probably belongs in another thread but I would love to find out more about the FJ-4/F-86K combo concept.What I know about it I got from a former co-worker who was at NAA-Columbus from the early 1950's to when they closed.
There were CAC plans for a four ADEN evolved Avon Sabre
That CAC four ADEN concept sounds nice. Got any drawings?
Very interesting and probably belongs in another thread but I would love to find out more about the FJ-4/F-86K combo concept.
There were CAC plans for a four ADEN evolved Avon Sabre
What I know about it I got from a former co-worker who was at NAA-Columbus from the early 1950's to when they closed.
That CAC four ADEN concept sounds nice. Got any drawings?
Very interesting and probably belongs in another thread but I would love to find out more about the FJ-4/F-86K combo concept.What I know about it I got from a former co-worker who was at NAA-Columbus from the early 1950's to when they closed.
There were CAC plans for a four ADEN evolved Avon Sabre
That CAC four ADEN concept sounds nice. Got any drawings?
I don't know how it would affect upgrades, but how about replacing the F-8's J57 with the smaller and lighter j79?F-104, F-4 afterburner vanes in back and bit larger intake otta do it.
Speaking of, while the F8U could carry four AIM-9s—something the Mirage could not boast
What was stopping the Mirage III from carrying more than two Sidewinders?
I don't know how it would affect upgrades, but how about replacing the F-8's J57 with the smaller and lighter j79?
Side thought on the F-8E(FN), what if the French had been willing to pay for a bit more French equipment and replaced the 20mm cannons with two DEFA 30mm cannons?
I'm going to be replacing the Colts on my RAN F-8E & RAM SLUF's with 30mm ADEN cannon ... we did it to the F-86F ;)
I'm going to be replacing the Colts on my RAN F-8E & RAM SLUF's with 30mm ADEN cannon ... we did it to the F-86F ;)
Somewhat like my 'What If' RAN Vought/Short V-384 (profiled by Jonesthetank) :-* :-* :-*
M.A.D
I'm going to be replacing the Colts on my RAN F-8E & RAM SLUF's with 30mm ADEN cannon ... we did it to the F-86F ;)Mind, the SLUFs do use the M-61 Vulcan, not the 20mm Colts, so the interior space, etc., may not lend itself to changing over to the Adens. Not sure why you'd want to if you have the Vulcan in place. It's a lot better gun than the 20mm Colt.
Actually, Paul, that depends on the A-7. The A-7A, A-7B, and converted A-7P all used the old twin Colts, so I see no reason they wouldn't be entirely suitable for ADENs.
I'm going to be replacing the Colts on my RAN F-8E & RAM SLUF's with 30mm ADEN cannon ... we did it to the F-86F ;)Mind, the SLUFs do use the M-61 Vulcan, not the 20mm Colts, so the interior space, etc., may not lend itself to changing over to the Adens. Not sure why you'd want to if you have the Vulcan in place. It's a lot better gun than the 20mm Colt.
Paul
Actually, according to the Specialty Press book on the F-8, LTV offered the second wing pylons to the US Navy but it was not taken up.Re-checked the book I cited, the LTV proposal with two pylons per wing was the V-458 and a three-view makes the back endpaper of the book. 'Twould be an interesting modeling subject.
The Vulcan has to be "spun up" before it can fire, whereas the revolver cannons are ready to fire as soon as they loaded and cocked.
The Vulcan has to be "spun up" before it can fire, whereas the revolver cannons are ready to fire as soon as they loaded and cocked.
The gun takes about 0.3 seconds to wind up to the full rate of fire so hardly an eternity...
Was the F-104 ever armed with anything other than a Vulcan internally?
A naval Starfighter derivative with its totally not ludicrous take-off and landing speed, negligible operating radius, and (when the proposal was made) a downward-firing ejection seat? Yeah, I'm totally surprised why the Navy didn't pick that one.
I stand corrected (somehow I missed that figure altogether when reading the article... :-[ ). Apparently the flight envelope could be radically changed by changes in aerodynamics while still keeping the same basic form. Should have noticed from the decrease in top speed that something major was going on...A naval Starfighter derivative with its totally not ludicrous take-off and landing speedFrom the Retromechanix article I linked to:
Re-checked the book I cited, the LTV proposal with two pylons per wing was the V-458 and a three-view makes the back endpaper of the book.
Specialty Press book on the F-8; a very good read.Re-checked the book I cited, the LTV proposal with two pylons per wing was the V-458 and a three-view makes the back endpaper of the book.
Which book is that?
Hey Logan Hartke, out of curiosity, did you conclude what the definitive Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968 was mate?🤔
MAD
Ah yes, well that's embracing. Please disregard my last Logan 😔Hey Logan Hartke, out of curiosity, did you conclude what the definitive Best Air Superiority Fighter, 1956-1968 was mate?🤔
MAD
Err...didn't he already answer you back on Reply #54?
Was the F-104 ever armed with anything other than a Vulcan internally?
Interesting question. None that I am aware of though I wouldn't be surprised if there was something at some point.
The closest I can find is the Model L-242 for the USN. This was not actually a F-104 though you can see the obvious family lines:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-104N%20Low%20res_zpstqqyblfz.jpg~original[/url])
([url]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TFF5074NhMo/WQTRPXUKNRI/AAAAAAAAKjM/854pqrSNsNUkeWHVqC-GAFaNqwp9U58JwCLcB/s1600/Lockheed%2B242%2BArtists%2BConcept%2BDarkened.jpg[/url])
([url]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cHWtcrfu_f0/WQTSbXK9gUI/AAAAAAAAKjU/WdLrhulU9XcsDz-3hrmWCQaRw7omeuYkgCLcB/s1600/F-104N%2BThree%2BView%2BComparison.jpg[/url])
This had 4× 20 mm Colt Mk 12 cannons similar to the Vought Crusader.
More info ([url]https://retromechanix.com/lockheed-l-242-navalized-star-fighter/nggallery/image/artists-impression-of-the-lockheed-l-242-vf-day-fighter-essentially-a-navalized-version-of-the-f-104-starfighter-submitted-to-buaer-on-february-26-1953-to-fulfill-the-requirements-of-os-130[/url])
Interesting find GTX re the Model L-242 and 4× 20 mm Colt Mk 12 cannons!😯
M.A.D
Air defense/superiority/dominance is really the only thing being evaluated here. Possible threats can be anything from B-47s/Tu-16s to F-4Bs/MiG-21s (and everything in between). Consider how your proposed pick would fare in aerial combat of that era. 1956 Suez, 1958 Taiwan Strait, 1964 Vietnam, 1965 Indo-Pakistan, 1967 Six-Day War, etc.
What was stopping the Mirage III from carrying more than two Sidewinders?
For some reason I keep on getting drawn back to this thread 🤔......
Now I fully appreciate the short comings of the Aim-4A/B Falcon AAM, but the question I'd like to put to the forum is whether the Aim-4 Falcon could have been improved? What was the main fault of the Aim-4 - seeker? motor? aerodynamic properties?
Now I appreciate that once the USAF dropped it's obsession of the Aim-4 in favour of the Aim-9 Sidewinder, so too was any real notion or impetuous to either seriously fix or develop the Aim-4, so as to fix it's inherent problem(s). But in truth, the Aim-4 Falcon would still be employed in frontline defence by the USAF (F-106), RCAF (F-101B), Greek and Turkish Air Forces (F-102), Swiss Air Force (Mirage IIIS) and Swedish and Finnish Air Force (J 35 Draken), so realistically there was room and a requirement to improve the Aim-4 Falcon missile, was there not?
I can't but help notice that there was a program to fix the known deficiencies of the Falcon - the XAIM-4H, which had a laser proximity fuze, new warhead, and better maneuverability. It was cancelled the following year without entering service....
On top of this, given the poor reliability of the R530 missile, wouldn't two questionable Aim-4 Falcon's give a better kill probability, whilst also allowing the carriage of the centreline drop tank in the process?🤔