Mig-15 v. F-86

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Mig-15 v. F-86
RockyMTNClimber 6/13/2010 10:40:31 AM

I think this is one of the more interesting historical aviation stories. At the conclusion of WWII the allies divied up the available German engineers and combined them with talent from their bench to create our first generation of jet powered combat aircraft. This happened just as Ole' Smokin Joe Stalin became frisky and decided he could take over the universe. The net Russian result was an airplane that was fastest in level flight, had the highest combat ceiling of any at the time, and could turn with anything the west had in a horizontal fight. Then, the Mig was produced in numbers that boggled the 1950 mind. When the whistle blew over Korea the US had very few assets in place to hold back the Red Tide. Initial combat fell on the F-80 and what WWII piston aircraft that were still stored in the region. The Mig quickly proved itself a vicious killer of B-29s and it could stay outside of any UN fighter pilot's weapons envelope he wanted to. In spite of this, the F-86 did finally arrive and with it some of the best pilots the world has ever seen. The Sabre Jet established itself as a heat shield against the communist "Faggot" (the NATO code name for the Mig-15) and ran up at least a six to one kill ratio. When we compare today's PAC-FX against western types it would be well that we consider we have not always had the pure performance advantages to keep our side safe. Sometimes we have actually had to settle for lower performance and other factors to prevail against our despotic enemies "inferior" equipment. I think the Mig-15 v. F-86 makes an interesting case study that remains relevant today. Check Six Rocky

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT

RockyMTNClimber of Sabres, Sparrows, and Huns..... 6/20/2010 10:55:53 AM

Earle,

The F100 had a very long and distinguished career in Vietnam. Several hundred of them were used as ground pounders over the South. They spent allot of hours over the southern half of North Vietnam as well as sniffing along the Cambodian/Laotian border areas under "Misty" operations. In addition to that a few of them were utilized over the Northern half of the country carrying Shrike missiles as the first "Wild Weasels". The F105 was a better platform to hit the industrial north and Hanoi/Haiphong because of it's greater speed, fuel capacity, and size so the Huns stayed mostly in the South after the Thuds took up residence in Thailand.

The F104 was designed as a point interceptor so there shouldn't have been allot of work for it in Vietnam but it was used off and on in the same ground attack role as the F100. It was also extensively utilized as the escort aircraft for RC135s providing refueling support to aircraft operating over North Vietnam in the mid sixties. Some of the longest missions recorded by fighters in that conflict actually fell to F104s when they escorted tankers out of Thailand to the Gulf of Tonkien in support of USAF strikes on Kep, in 1967 I think it was. Those Starfighter drivers logged something like 7-8 refuelings during those 12 hour missions. That is according to Gen. Kenneth Bell in his excellent book "100 Missions North".

Herald,

The Sparrow wasn't appreciated for it's complexity by most of the maintenance staff and air crews. The armament crews were treating it like a Sidewinder but that just didn't work. For it's day it was a very amazing piece of work. My point was that Richie and Debellvue (Richie's RIO and partner in crime over the north) understood that it was a basically sound system that needed to be given lots of special attention to keep it functioning. Because of this they went to their missile shop and spent time that no other combat pilot in the USAF did. They learned how to use it properly in combat and how to maintain it in combat conditions. That is why Richie killed 5 Mig 21's with it and Debellvue was credited with a total of seven (5 with Richie and two with other command pilots). The Navy's problems with it stemmed from the fact that the Sparrow didn't like carrier landings. They actually had to develop a later version of it to get it toughened up for that abuse.

I have never heard of a F101 Voodoo pilot being credited with a air to air kill.

Who ever suggested this...

Putting a F86 over North Vietnam is just silly. Subsonic design, no ECM, & way too short a range to operate up there.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

earlm 2 planes downtown 6/20/2010 11:40:49 AM

F-105 and F-4. Nothing else was suitable to go all the way north.

Quote Reply

JFKY F-86 and Mach-2 and Vietnam... 6/20/2010 9:01:31 PM

1) Vietnam....F-86 was too short-legged to operate near Hanoi. Not going to happen.

2) It was less a case of Mach-2 Fighters out-classing the F-86, if that's what you really mean.

A) There are and were no OPERATIONAL Mach-2 fighters. Sure many a/c are THEORETICALLY capable of Mach-2, but operationally, no. The F-4 could achieve Mach-2, new (new engines, unwrinkled, unpatched skin), clean, and with the RIGHT amount of fuel, enough to get to altitude, get to Mach-2 and get home, not an operational load. But the F-4 nor any subsequent a/c ever USED their "Mach-2" capacities.

B) IF by "Mach-2 Fighters" you mean the subsequent generations of fighter to the F-86, F-100, F-105, F-4, Mirage III, MiG-21 then yes I'd agree the F-86 was outclassed, in general. And in a large-scale conflict like Vietnam would have been ineffective. It lacked armament, 2 Cm Vulcan, and only carried 2 AIM-9. It lacked the radar, and it lacked the avionics, ESM and ECM to function over the North IADS....and up-grading the F-86, even if possible (Electric generation capacity for one thing, radar for another) would not have been cost-effective.

C) If the Mach-2 refers to the capacity of later fighters, rather than to the actual idea of Mach-2, then yes, the F-86 WAS out-classed by the "Mach-2 Fighters." I can't see how anyone could argue otherwise. India-Pakistan, though large-scale, didn't involve the level of technical sophistication that was involved, over the Suez 1973 or Vietnam 1968.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 6/20/2010 10:32:12 PM

platform relevance is married to mission set and requirements.

eg douglas sandy's were old tech but more than suitable for the job.

Quote Reply

JFKY Which was NOT 6/21/2010 9:40:45 AM

hanging around the densest hub, of one of the densest Integrated Air Defense Systems in the world., trying to "duke it out" with the MiG-19/21 and avoid a tremendous volume of AAA and SAM. Instead, they did CSAR, generally not in the Hanoi area and flew CAS in the South, and, in the end, the SA-7 made the A-1 obsolete, in those roles.

Further, the F-86 had too low a cruise speed to keep up with the strike packages, in Vietnam.....so no "Sabrejets" over Hanoi, or if there were they were going to there AFTER the strike package had left....on their own......

Quote Reply

Hamilcar Drag. 6/21/2010 11:06:52 AM

A bomb-laden Phantom did about 500 knots, JFKY. Escort did about the same until the fight. I don't know where some of you assume that jets of that era super-cruised to their targets. They didn't have the fuel time in burn seconds or in the heat core temperature time limits of their engines to do that.

The best a J-79 could do was about 600-800 seconds reheat continuous then or so; and then it slagged or you ran out of fuel or both.

The Mach 1+ ability was just a dash speed or sustained acceleration used in very careful spurts to dodge SAMS and set up separation from engagement when you ran for your life from a mistake and wanted some empty sky to do something else in the fight.

Most fights that developed into dogfights, then and NOW are about Mach 0.5 to Mach 0.9 in that speed band depending on local altitude, weather conditions, air pressure and the vagaries of the compression wall which means that most fighting took place at between 550 and 1100 km/h. or ~150 and 300 m/s.

Contempt of engagement is an advantage, but it is not a magic carpet ride. You still have to dump burden and watch those limited reheat burn seconds in a fight or you are not going home.

I'll do a workup on the F-86 this evening and see if it could carry the ECM, missiles and Aden cannon and the fuel you say it needed to go downtown Hanoi, from say Danang.

Quote Reply

JFKY Drive On Troop 6/21/2010 11:43:53 AM

You and Pierre Spey, keep re-engineering old a/c....it's going to need a new radar, new avionics, and more power generation...at a minimum, have fun sho-horning all that into an old air frame.

Isn't it just easier to fly the F-4?

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 6/21/2010 12:01:13 PM

You and Pierre Spey, keep re-engineering old a/c....it's going to need a new radar, new avionics, and more power generation...at a minimum, have fun sho-horning all that into an old air frame.

Isn't it just easier to fly the F-4?

Its easier to do it with an F-8, but you guys said "can't be done".

There is no can't in the question, "What can you do?"

Quote Reply

JFKY And your point? 6/21/2010 12:29:18 PM

The F-8 is a good/great dog-fighter...not what the US Navy wanted or needed, and not what the USAF wanted either.

So by all means, break out the slide rule and "prove" that an up-graded F-86 could have operated over Hanoi. Just don't forget to include the comparative statistics about cost and performance....that if you are willing to double or treble the cost of the F-86 you can have an F-4 equivalent or the like.

Bottom-Line: by 1968 the F-86 was an outdated air frame...IF you're willing to spend lots of money, you CAN make it a competitive dog-fighter, I guess...question, why spend the money?

Wouldn't it be better to do what the USN and USAF actually did, learn to fight the F-4 against the MiG-19/21 and use the real multi-role, modern platform? And in the future field the F-15?

Be sure to fit TWO Aden/DEFA's.....that'll give you more fire power than the M-61....though run some numbers on the M-61, too...and ask, "Would the USAF really purchase the Aden?" Not sure any US a/c carried it....yes the AH-64 carries it now, but not sure if anyone ever fitted it to an US a/c in that period....might want to try fitting the M-39 2cm Revolver, a much more likely fit, as it IS then currently being carried by US a/c.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 6/21/2010 10:54:03 PM

General characteristics of Avon baseline Sabre.

Crew: 1
Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 1 in (11.3 m)
Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)
Wing area: 302.3 sq ft (28.1 m²)
Empty weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)
Loaded weight: 16,000 lb (7,256 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 21,210 lb (9,621 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Rolls-Royce Avon turbojet, 7,500 lbf (33.4 kN)

Performance

Maximum speed: 700 mph (1,100 km/h) (605 knots)
Range: 1,153 mi, (1,000 NM, 1,850 km)
Service ceiling: 52,000 ft (15,850 m)
Rate of climb: 12,000 ft/min at sea level (61 m/s)

Armament

Guns: 2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 150 rounds per gun
Rockets: 24× Hispano SURA R80 80mm rockets
Missiles: 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder Air-to-air missiles
Bombs: 5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on four external hardpoints, bombs are usually mounted on outer two pylons as the inner pairs are wet-plumbed pylons for 2× 200 gallons drop tanks to give the CAC Sabre a useful range. A wide variety of bombs can be carried with maximum standard loadout being 2 x 1,000 lb bombs plus 2 drop tanks. Wilson 1989

Data from Meteor, Sabre and Mirage in Australian Service^,Wilson 1989

Specifications (MiG-17F)

General characteristics

Crew: One
Length: 11.36 m (37 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 9.63 m (31 ft 7 in)
Height: 3.80 m (12 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 22.6 m² (243.2 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,930 kg (8,646 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,354 kg (11,803 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6,286 kg (13,858 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Klimov VK-1F afterburning turbojet, 33.1 kN with afterburner (7,440 lbf)

Performance

Maximum speed: 1,144 km/h at 3,000 m (711 mph at 10,000 ft (3,000 m))
Range: 1,080 km, 1,670 km with drop tanks (670 mi / 1,035 mi)
Service ceiling: 16,600 m (54,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 65 m/s (12,795 ft/min)
Wing loading: 237 kg/m² (48 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.63

Armament

1x 37 mm Nudelman N-37 cannon (40 rounds total)
2x 23 mm Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 cannons (80 rounds per gun, 160 rounds total)
Up to 500 kg (1,100 lb) of external stores on two pylons, including 100 kg (220 lb) and 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or fuel tanks
(some versions of MiG-17F equipped with 3x NR-23 cannons)

Koenig, William and Peter Scofield. Soviet Military Power. Greenwich, Connecticut: Bison Books, 1983.

Close match, but on consideration I would prefer this??

Specifications (F-86Ham) based on the the Old Sabredog.

Data from Combat Aircraft since 1945 ^[4], The American Fighter ^[5]

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 1.5 in (11.31 m)
Height: 15 ft in (4.57 m)
Em

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT