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
doggtag    Skyhawk vs MiG-17, seems to favor A-4, 2:1   6/25/2010 12:39:25 PM
Saw this some time ago, and just found it again...
 
 
 
Of interest:
 
"From 1956 on, Navy Skyhawks were the first aircraft to be deployed outside of the U.S. armed with the AIM-9 Sidewinder. On strike missions, which was the Skyhawk's normal role, the air-to-air armament was for self-defensive purposes."
 
Don't know whether there's truth to that or not: A-4s were the first (US?) aircraft to deploy with AIM-9s outside the US?
 
 
"Only two confirmed A-4 air-to-air kills have ever been made, both with Zuni rockets designed for use against ground targets."
 
Air to air kills with unguided stuff?
And we're arguing how effecetive they'd be in air to air with actual AAMs?
Read more:
 
"On 1 May 1967, an A-4C Skyhawk piloted by LCDR Theodore R. Swartz of VA-76 aboard the carrier USS Bon Homme Richard {Template:WP Ships USS instances}, shot down a Soviet-built MiG-17 with an unguided Zuni rocket as the Skyhawk's only air-to-air victory of the Vietnam war."
 
"In May 1970, an Israeli Skyhawk piloted by Col. Ezra Dotan also shot down a MiG-17 with unguided rockets, over south Lebanon."
 
Hmmm,... The element of surprise in both cases?
 
"During the war, 362 A-4/TA-4F Skyhawks were lost to all causes. The US Navy lost 271 A-4s, the US Marine Corps lost 81 A-4s and ten TA-4Fs. A total of 32 A-4s were lost to surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and one A-4 was lost in aerial combat to a MiG-17 on 25 April 1967."
 
Huh.
So it seems, by either blind luck, element of surprise, or superior piloting skills (or most likely, a combination of the three?),
the "lowly" A-4 attack plane twice managed to best a Russian fighter (in both cases, MiG-17), with unguided rockets, no less.
And yet we would hesitate to properly kit it with 4 AIM-9s and let it go hunting/escorting?
 
(I seem to recall an incident in the Falklands where a Royal Navy Wasp helicopter was shot down, but couldn't find if it was indeed by an Argie Skyhawk, or a S. Entendard, or even a Pucara...but it's not like shooting down solw, lumbering helicopters takes any amount of skill...)
 
No offense, but no matter what the data suggests, it seems there are always exceptions to the rule that defy the odds and what the textbooks might say.
 
(Ironically enough, it's even mentioned,  "....the nimble Skyhawks that had become the TOPGUN preferred surrogate for the MiG-17." )
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Herald reply....   6/25/2010 4:35:56 PM
Them 4 Us 1
Not a good exchange ratio. It was CJs big mistake.
 Am working on a dogfight Scooter. Need electrical and a better engine.  
H. 
 
Herald, USAF lost no F 104s to enemy aircraft. Not in Vietnam, not anywhere else. You are entitled to your own opinion, as misinformed/uneducated as it has consistently been here, but you are not entitled to your own facts. As I pointed out earlier the F-104 had a 100% mission success rate in protecting US air assets against potential enemy aircraft. It was well replaced by more capable/modern types when they were available but it had an enviable record in Vietnam.
 
Regarding your new A-4, since the Navy already owned an excellent fleet fighter in the F-8 (which could be operated off of the smaller carriers) your creation simply isn't needed. For the record the USS Intrepid (USN squadron VSF-3) actually did operate Sidewinder equiped A-4B's in the fleet defence role during a deployment May-Dec. 1967. So the USN was satisfied of it's ability to perform that mission without any special upgrades.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       6/25/2010 6:54:50 PM
 
Losses occurred. An F-104C was shot down by ground fire on 22 July 1965, the pilot, Captain Roy Blakely, being killed. On 20 September 1965, Captain Phil Smith was flying a CAP over the Gulf of Tonkin at night and in murky weather. He got lost, strayed over the Chinese island of Hainan, was "bounced" by Chinese MiG-19s when he dropped out of the cloud cover to get his bearings, and was shot down. He was interned in a Chinese prison camp until 1973. Worse, two F-104Cs that went looking for him collided in the lousy weather and were lost, though both pilots ejected safely and were recovered.
 
That's THREE right there in one incident!
 
Who' has a better grasp of fact here?
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    More opinions on the 104 please   6/25/2010 9:58:42 PM
Pro:  Escort record, hard to kill one A2A if flown right
Con:  Hard to kill anything in it, W-L record, vulnerable to SAM's
 
My own opinion is that it's the great lost opportunity in US fighter evolution.  Almost an all time great, the CL1200 Lancer would have been better to build in the first place.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Rocky   6/25/2010 11:51:44 PM
I thought you were ignoring me? 
 
Anyway, your arguement that the North Vietnamese would have known that the aircraft on their radar screen was an F-104 because the type was deployed doesn't stack up, there were other fighters deployed there as well so how did they tell the difference? And I repeat, scaring off a few Mig-17's did not prove that the type was an effective fighter for its generation.
 
BTW, calling people childish names for no reason during what has otherwise been an enjoyable and pleasent discussion really says a lot more about you than it does about me. Grow up.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Earl   6/26/2010 1:09:51 AM

Pro:  Escort record, hard to kill one A2A if flown right

Con:  Hard to kill anything in it, W-L record, vulnerable to SAM's

 My own opinion is that it's the great lost opportunity in US fighter evolution.  Almost an all time great, the CL1200 Lancer would have been better to build in the first place.



Not much point in a fighter aircraft that finds it hard to kill a comparable type. They should have built it as a tail-less delta and it would have been a good type, with a reasonable turning performance and improved fuel capacity.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald, to be fair...   6/26/2010 9:43:03 AM
Rocky said lost no a/c in a2a, not lost NO a/c....
 
Your "evidence" is way off point....the a/c lost were lost to ground fire and a2a COLLISION, not DRVN a/c.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       6/26/2010 10:02:54 AM

Rocky said lost no a/c in a2a, not lost NO a/c....

 

Your "evidence" is way off point....the a/c lost were lost to ground fire and a2a COLLISION, not DRVN a/c.


The evidence was A2A combat and exact on point as quoted, JFKY. Reread.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    MY bad...   6/26/2010 10:46:46 AM
You're right .  I will point out that it's only ONE lost in a2a, the other 2 are operational and have nothing to add to the combat record of the F-104, pro or con.
 
Further, one is not a data set, it's a data POINT....it's really impossible to draw ANY meaningful conclusions from one incident.
 
I will stipulate that the failure to lose any a/c that were escorted by F-104's is also fairly meaningless.  An act that FAILED to happen is difficult to ascribe causality to.  In this case Rocky,IIRC, is going to have to run some statistical analysis to demonstrate that F-104 escorted missions had a STATISTICALLY SMALLER AND MEANIGFUL reduction in losses, AND demonstrate that DRVN a/c did not intercept, BECAUSE of the presence of F-104's.
 
Lastly, I will say that the broad brush of history would suggest the F-104 was not really the answer over North Vietnam.  The USAF withdrew the a/c rather than INCREASING its deployment.  The USAF didn't see the value of the F-104 in the air war, and I think that speaks volumes.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       6/26/2010 11:01:44 AM

You're right .  I will point out that it's only ONE lost in a2a, the other 2 are operational and have nothing to add to the combat record of the F-104, pro or con.

 The only thing that you needed to say was that I was correct. The two other planes collided in thr same incident. They destroyed each other air to air.
 

Further, one is not a data set, it's a data POINT....it's really impossible to draw ANY meaningful conclusions from one incident.

Its a negation to a claim for a data set. I could add the Pakistani F-104s to the mix who failed against Indian Mig 21s (the other 3 shot down) but this was a USAF claim that we never lost a Starfighter as a result of enemy A2A action. We lost THREE. One that was shot down and two that hit each other that went looking for him.

I will stipulate that the failure to lose any a/c that were escorted by F-104's is also fairly meaningless.  An act that FAILED to happen is difficult to ascribe causality to.  In this case Rocky,IIRC, is going to have to run some statistical analysis to demonstrate that F-104 escorted missions had a STATISTICALLY SMALLER AND MEANIGFUL reduction in losses, AND demonstrate that DRVN a/c did not intercept, BECAUSE of the presence of F-104's.

That last would be a correct way to handle a null proof. The if then is always hardest to prove when you assert a presence of a variable and then do not test for its absence.
 
Lastly, I will say that the broad brush of history would suggest the F-104 was not really the answer over North Vietnam.  The USAF withdrew the a/c rather than INCREASING its deployment.  The USAF didn't see the value of the F-104 in the air war, and I think that speaks volumes.
 
Agreed.

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



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics