If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Would the air force have any better off in Vietnam if they'd used the F-104 for air to air instead of the F-4?
I'm not talking about factoring in built-in air to ground capability, I'm talking about strictly air to air and escort. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... I'm not talking about factoring in built-in air to ground capability, I'm talking about strictly air to air and escort. The F-104 was used in the Vietnam War. Fourteen were lost with 4 pilots lost and 2 POW. Units included 436TFS of the 479TFW which arrived at Danang on 20 April 1965. They proved too short range for their intended escort role and were sometimes used for air-to-ground. The answer to your query in the title line is no. Tex Houston |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:56:38 -0700, "Tex Houston"
wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . I'm not talking about factoring in built-in air to ground capability, I'm talking about strictly air to air and escort. The F-104 was used in the Vietnam War. Fourteen were lost with 4 pilots lost and 2 POW. Units included 436TFS of the 479TFW which arrived at Danang on 20 April 1965. They proved too short range for their intended escort role and were sometimes used for air-to-ground. The answer to your query in the title line is no. Tex Houston IIRC weren't most of them lost because they tried to use them in the air to ground role? I'm talking about strictly air to air. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:31:04 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote: I'm not talking about factoring in built-in air to ground capability, I'm talking about strictly air to air and escort. A number of factors are involved. One, is the loss of scheduling flexibility by adding another discrete system to the total package. More supply, maintenance, avionics, engine, operations, etc. Keep in mind that the A/A mission was very limited. While MiGs were a threat, they operated almost exclusively in the defensive intercept role and predominantly in Route Pack VI. Missions anywhere else had little need for escort or CAP. The F-104 didn't have particularly good endurance for the CAP role and didn't have much of an A/A radar for running its own intercepts. The probe/drogue refueling system adds additional tanker requirements (although limited drogue tankers were flown for F-100F and B-66 support). Low altitude engagements with the early AIM-9 (during the 65-66 time frame when they were deployed, the version was AIM-9B) weren't very reliable. The seeker head was virtually useless against ground clutter and needed high altitude/blue-sky to discriminate. Gun engagements for F-104 vs MiG-17 wouldn't be very successful as the high-wing loaded, large turn radius 104 wouldn't match the -17's manueverability. When F-104s were tasked as escort for F-105 Wild Weasel flights in RP VI, a pair were lost on 1 August '66. Without RHAW, the airplane was restricted after that to more permissive environments flying limited interdiction missions. Overall, the 104 performance in SEA was less than stellar. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:32:54 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:31:04 GMT, Scott Ferrin wrote: I'm not talking about factoring in built-in air to ground capability, I'm talking about strictly air to air and escort. A number of factors are involved. One, is the loss of scheduling flexibility by adding another discrete system to the total package. More supply, maintenance, avionics, engine, operations, etc. Keep in mind that the A/A mission was very limited. While MiGs were a threat, they operated almost exclusively in the defensive intercept role and predominantly in Route Pack VI. Missions anywhere else had little need for escort or CAP. The F-104 didn't have particularly good endurance for the CAP role and didn't have much of an A/A radar for running its own intercepts. The probe/drogue refueling system adds additional tanker requirements (although limited drogue tankers were flown for F-100F and B-66 support). Low altitude engagements with the early AIM-9 (during the 65-66 time frame when they were deployed, the version was AIM-9B) weren't very reliable. The seeker head was virtually useless against ground clutter and needed high altitude/blue-sky to discriminate. Gun engagements for F-104 vs MiG-17 wouldn't be very successful as the high-wing loaded, large turn radius 104 wouldn't match the -17's manueverability. When F-104s were tasked as escort for F-105 Wild Weasel flights in RP VI, a pair were lost on 1 August '66. Without RHAW, the airplane was restricted after that to more permissive environments flying limited interdiction missions. Overall, the 104 performance in SEA was less than stellar. Thanks. This month's Airpower/Wings sure talked the thing's performance over Vietnam up. I'd read long ago that it didn't do all that well over ther so I thought I'd come here for the lowdown :-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:51:48 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:32:54 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote: Overall, the 104 performance in SEA was less than stellar. Thanks. This month's Airpower/Wings sure talked the thing's performance over Vietnam up. I'd read long ago that it didn't do all that well over ther so I thought I'd come here for the lowdown :-) Airpower usually is pretty well researched. Can't imagine a positive review of F-104 SEA performance. Let's be sure to note that the airplane itself had excellent performance and the 479th Wing (435th TFS, particularly) were instrumental in development of modern two-ship air/air tactics. Let's also note that the airplane in NATO service for a whole flock of countries served reliably for forty years. In SEA, the aircraft didn't live up to its potential. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... IIRC weren't most of them lost because they tried to use them in the air to ground role? I'm talking about strictly air to air. 1965 5 losses (2 Close Air Support, 1 to MiG while CAP, two midair while RESCAP) 1966 5 losses (3 CAS or Armed Recce, 2 to SAMs while CAP) 1967 4 losses (1 Armed Recce, 3 while CAP) 5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were getting paid. Tex Houston |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:00:52 -0700, "Tex Houston"
wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . IIRC weren't most of them lost because they tried to use them in the air to ground role? I'm talking about strictly air to air. 1965 5 losses (2 Close Air Support, 1 to MiG while CAP, two midair while RESCAP) 1966 5 losses (3 CAS or Armed Recce, 2 to SAMs while CAP) 1967 4 losses (1 Armed Recce, 3 while CAP) 5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were getting paid. Tex Houston I like that last comment :-) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Tex Houston wrote:
5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were getting paid. According to the "Kellys' Way" video from the Flight Test Historical Association, in 1951 Kelly Johnson visited AF units in Korea to find out what the pilot's wanted. The answer is described as higher speed, greater altitude, and less complexity. And that's what he tried to deliver with the F-104. So what went wrong? Why didn't he hear a request for greater maneuverability? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Air Force celebrates Centennial of Flight | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 10:58 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |
Air Force announces acquisition management reorganization | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 21st 03 09:16 PM |