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 Herald's apples and oranges fruit bowl.... 6/26/2010 11:54:31 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.

Herald, lets see here. You attempt to equate a lost pilot who is not attempting to defend himself (all he had to do was stoke his afterburner and the Mig 19s would have never seen him) and a mid air collision with air to air combat? You are fond of stretching reality to fit your odd and impossibly mis-informed world vew aren't you!

Now back to my point. The USAF lost no F 104s to air to air combat. Not in Vietnam and not anywhere else. The F 104s in Vietnam had a 100% mission success rate in the air combat role in Vietnam.

Quote Reply

warpig 6/26/2010 12:15:28 PM

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.

With the potential exception of those two losses occurring because one or both pilots were reacting to information regarding the enemy (e.g., "Break right, he's on your six"), it is insipid to consider those two losses as being caused by the enemy. If you do, then every aircraft throughout the war that went in on landing or take-off due to engine failure, lost in weather en route to or from the AO, etc., was a loss caused by the enemy, too. As for counting those two losses to be for or against the F-104, you might just as well count them as kills for the F-104 as each killed the other. There, now it's 2-1 in air-to-air combat in favor of the F-104. Or maybe compromise and double-count those two as both victories and losses, and make the tally 2-3. Both are equally valid as saying they are losses due to air-to-air combat (which is to say, none of the above is valid, and they were losses due to other than air-to-air combat).

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber AG 6/26/2010 1:04:23 PM

I thought you were ignoring me?

Anyway, your argument 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 pleasant discussion really says a lot more about you than it does about me. Grow up.

You can imagine my disappointment when you returned to the US boards here after promising to never ever to come back again! Anyway, I never argued anything of the sort. I merely answered your question, a fairly good one, that there is more to detection of an in-bound flight than a fuzzy blip on the screen. In fact the enemy had allot of methods to sort out who was what. First, each aircraft type has a different speed for refueling, based upon the war load it is carrying. A F 104 carrying a set of 750lb bombs plus a set of zuni packs and drop tanks is going to refuel at a different speed than a F 105 or F 4 with a similar load out. They are going to refuel at a different altitude as well to take advantage of "best economy" burns for each type with each load. An imaginative and aware enemy, which the NV certainly were, keeps scrupulous records and can ferret out who is in-bound based upon this type of data. Radio frequencies and call signs weren't scrambled around because of the logistical nightmare involved with who is on first, and what is on second....

In the famous "bolo" operation where Col. Olds squadron convinced the NVAF that his flight of F 4s were unescorted F 105s they had to attatch ECM pods that F 4s had never in history of the war carried. Then they used all of the other more subtle clues that I mention above to convince the NV to come up and play. At the time he only figured he had about of 1 in 3 chance of pulling it off because enemy spies could in fact see who took off from the airport of origination. They bought it and the score was 7 Mig 21's down to no USAF losses.

BTW, I'll admit that I shouldn't have called herald an idiot and that I felt bad about it after the fact. I shouldn't allow his complete disregard for history upset me and just convert it to a teach-able moment for him. I promise to do better in the future.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 6/26/2010 1:08:11 PM

Herald, lets see here. You attempt to equate a lost pilot who is not attempting to defend himself (all he had to do was stoke his afterburner and the Mig 19s would have never seen him^1) and a mid air collision with air to air combat? You are fond of stretching reality to fit your odd and impossibly mis-informed world vew aren't you!

Now back to my point. The USAF lost no F 104s to air to air combat. Not in Vietnam and not anywhere else. The F 104s in Vietnam had a 100% mission success rate in the air combat role in Vietnam.

1. The pilot was shot down. How he was shot down is of some tangential interest. He was LOST and was not paying attention..

2. The other two planes collided with each other while looking for him. How they collided is also of tangential; They also were not paying attention.^2

The statement explicitly claimed: read: "No USAF F-104s were lost as a result of enemy air to air combat."

Three were lost in one event that was air to air combat^3.

It demonstrates itself. I do not regard excuses, I point out outcomes, and here I give you an indication WHY the F-104 failed three times.

^1 Not valid even as an excuse. He was bounced and splashed just like >50% of aerial victories claimed since Bolcke splashed his first plane from sun ambush.

^2 Not valid even as an excuse, since they should have been watching for each other as well for bandits. They knew they were in Indian country and they were taught formation flying.

^3 They were paying attention to flying a tough to fly plane in combat, which means they had their eyes inside the canopy instead of outside, where their vision belonged. The mechanical and HFE outcomes and symptoms are obvious from just this one episode, but are ever so much clearer, when you look at related Pakistani, Luftwaffe and Italian air force troubles with this bird as they tried to use it.

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/anchor.gif" alt="" /> 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.

See above for why I account these two specified losses as combat losses as the result of PLAAF action. Self-immolation caused as the result of enemy action is still a kill added in the enemy's column.

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber What kind of a pretzel is that herald?.... 6/26/2010 1:28:10 PM

You have contorted yourself into a hell of a logic-pretzel in order to make that work. To be a gentleman about this I'd concede that one pilot allowed himself to be shot down, not really air to air combat. The collision wasn't air to air combat unless the crash was caused by enemy action. Which you have not demonstrated. An example of that would be two of Chuck Yeager's 10 air to air kills were caused by a collision after he fired at and hit one aircraft it turned into his wing man causing both to go down.

My statement about the Vietnam War remains valid. In the Vietnam War there were no F 104s shot down by enemy aircraft and its crews had a 100% success rate as MigCap/BarCap/and air escort. The one air to air loss of an F 104 was to a Chinese pilot over Soverign Chinese territory so when I said that we lost no F 104 air to air losses anywhere else that could be inaccurate depending upon how you define air to air combat (and how much you like looking like a pretzel).

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

Hamilcar To be on point. 6/26/2010 1:59:31 PM

1. I had to demonstrate two things here.

a. that the F-104 was a loser in air combat and sis gave an unfavorable exchange ratio..

b. I had to explain WHY.

This I have done with no pretzels involved. Straight at the heart is that the F-104 was not a pilot friendly plane that a pilot could trust to not buck on him while he did the things outside the cockpit he was supposed to do. he was minding the plane and not the fight.

The planes were pilot killers to begin with, and actual combat just made this design fault much worse.

When even a Mig 21 beats you consistently with mediocre pilots flying the Migs, its time to turn the F-104 into frying pans

Quote Reply

earlm 6/26/2010 2:39:05 PM

How many tankers etc were lost when F-4's or any other plane was flying CAP? Seems like weak evidence in support of the F-104.

Quote Reply

earlm 6/26/2010 2:45:26 PM

1. I had to demonstrate two things here.

a. that the F-104 was a loser in air combat and sis gave an unfavorable exchange ratio..

b. I had to explain WHY.

The planes were pilot killers to begin with, and actual combat just made this design fault much worse.

When even a Mig 21 beats you consistently with mediocre pilots flying the Migs, its time to turn the F-104 into frying pans

Maybe we need a recap of why the F-104 struggles to do damage to an enemy.

1. Too hard to fly?

2. Any instabilty at combat speeds?

3. M61 is mounted on one side so recoil causes issues? Remember, no FCS to counter the yaw with some rudder

4. Limitations on Sidewinder?

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 6/26/2010 3:07:12 PM

Maybe we need a recap of why the F-104 struggles to do damage to an enemy.

1. Too hard to fly?

Tough plane to learn since it was not "conventional" in behavior or layout. A LOT of cylinder lift was designed into her and that is not the same thing as wing lift. You had to roll into your turns rather than bank to match a Mig.

2. Any instability at combat speeds?

Definitely, the nose liked to drift on you unless you corrected.

3. M61 is mounted on one side so recoil causes issues? Remember, no FCS to counter the yaw with some rudder

I don't know that CJ even considered that an issue as he thought that at 100 rounds a second that no sane pilot would fire a full second and would cause such a drift effect. Me? I don't know..

4. Limitations on Sidewinder?

Definitely. You have to stick in his aft 120 and hold until acquisition. An F-4 was rock steady in point and you could drag the nose around and hold her. See 1. and 2 on the F-104.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Rocky 6/26/2010 8:38:02 PM

You can imagine my disappointment when you returned to the US boards here after promising to never ever to come back again!

Actually I stuck around the US Board because you took a break and because a couple of others became a bit more conciliatory, so I thought the lesson had been learned and the tone improved to make it a bit more enjoyable.

Anyway, I really am not that interested in bickering for the sake of it. I can understand how people might get heat up about current political issues or even historical ones with siginficant moral element such as the discussion on the causes of WW1 on the US Board, but in my opinion the relative performance of obsolete fighters should be considered a topic for gentlemanly debate and leisure .... because in the big scheme of things it ain't that important but is lots of fun. Can we agree on that?

Quote Reply

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