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
earlm    Why mess around with a Sabre   6/22/2010 12:38:14 AM
Just use a combo of F-4's and F-8's.  Also, with a low TWR, how low and slow will a Sabre be after it avoids a SAM?
 
Also, check out one of the studies the Air Force did with the F-104.  Apparently they used tactics where one went in after a bandit, the bandit would break and a second trailing 104 would take a Vulcan shot.  Note that it was not a Sidewinder shot.  The 104 remains untouchable through the whole thing but does have issues with making kills.  Could it be that with enough 104's you could keep the enemey defensive all the time?  This assumes that the 104 can hack it rnage wise, and with operational factors.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    More on the 104   6/22/2010 12:52:29 AM
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    Even More on the 104   6/22/2010 1:03:45 AM

F-104Cs served in SEA in 1965-66 and 1966-67 during two separate deployments. Over the course of these two deployments, seven F-104s were lost to enemy ground defenses; one F-104 was shot down by an enemy aircraft, and no enemy aircraft were engaged by F-104s while flying escort or CAP missions. It has been said that the F-104s "never had a mission and never made a mark" in SEA. Misconceptions, myth and misinformation about the F-104 have led to this impression. The facts tell a different story. By 1964, the USAF's only primary air superiority aircraft, the F-104C, had been forward deployed on several occasions to project US power and assure control of the air during world crises. The F-104 was widely regarded as the world's foremost daylight air-to-air platform, and the pilots of TAC's 479th TFW, the only operators of the F-104C, had proven themselves to be masters of their trade in numerous mock air-to-air encounters. It was therefore understood that the F-104Cs of the 479th's 435th, 436th or 476th TFSs would rapidly deploy to any troublespot where air superiority must be quickly established. Such a spot was SEA in 1965.

Operation Two Buck

Soon after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964, TAC began deploying aircraft in Operation Two Buck, a TDY jet force buildup in SEA. At the time of the initial 1964 buildup, PACAF advocated deployment of an F-104 contingent to protect US air traffic over the Gulf of Tonkin from harassment by PRC and NVN aircraft. However, in January 1965 when TAC proposed sending F-104s to relieve TDY pressure on its overtaxed F-100 units, PACAF reversed its initial stance, citing the logistic complications of adding one more aircraft type to the SEA mix. PACAF was convinced the existing MiG threat in SEA did not warrant a unit dedicated to the air superiority role. Events in the following months would change PACAF's opinion. With the beginning of Rolling Thunder strikes in March 1965, the tempo of bombing over NVN escalated substantially. Unfortunately, the tempo and aggressiveness of NVN and PRC MiG also increased. Initially the heightened aggressiveness was felt primarily by the USN as PRC harassment of aircraft over the Gulf of Tonkin stepped up. NVN aircraft then began to dog US bombing missions over NVN. On 3 April 1965 three NVN MiG-17s attacked a USN strike on the Dong Phuong Thong bridge, damaged an F-8 Crusader, and escaped unharmed. The following day, two NVN MiG-17s attacked a flight of four F-105s that were waiting their turn to bomb the Than Hoa bridge. The MiGs approached without warning, shot down two of the F-105s, completely disrupted the strike, then evaded escorting F-100s to escape unscathed. Obviously, the existing early warning and fighter assets in SEA were insufficient to guarantee US air superiority in the region. Accordingly, an EC-121D College Eye unit was dispatched to extend radar warning coverage over NVN, and TAC was asked to deploy F-104s to escort the EC-121s over the Gulf of Tonkin and to provide a MiG screen for USAF strike aircraft over NVN. On 7 April, TAC issued the deployment order to the 479th TFW, and the first F-104Cs of the 476th TFS landed at Kung Kuan AB, Taiwan, on 11 April. Kung Kuan was to serve as the main operating base for the F-104s, with regular rotation of aircraft to the forward operating base at DaNang. Twenty-four F-104s were deployed to Kung Kuan, and of these, fourteen would be maintained at DaNang by rotation every ten days. This deployment scheme would be utilized throughout the F-104's Two Buck commitment. After a work-up period of seven days, fourteen F-104s arrived at DaNang on 19 April and flew their first escort mission the next day. EC-121 escort missions typically involved three flights of four F-104s, and two KC-135s. The escort sorties typically lasted from two to five hours and the operating area was normally between 250 and 300 miles NNW of DaNang. MiGCAP missions over NVN utilized one to three flights of four F-104s deployed at various altitudes between the strike area and the Hanoi-Haiphong area. CAP points were 225 to 275 miles NNW of DaNang and on-station times varied from forty to ninety minutes. Aerial refueling was only required for the longer duration missions. The effect of F-104 deployment upon NVN and PRC MiG operations was immediate and dramatic. NVN MiGs avoided contact with USAF strikes being covered by F-104s, and PRC MiGs gave the EC-12

 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Its all on the acceleration gamma.   6/22/2010 1:08:17 AM

Just use a combo of F-4's and F-8's.  Also, with a low TWR, how low and slow will a Sabre be after it avoids a SAM?

The later Avons have reheat so your SabreHAM should scoot ahead of a Guideline nimble enough to dodge.

Also, check out one of the studies the Air Force did with the F-104.  Apparently they used tactics where one went in after a bandit, the bandit would break and a second trailing 104 would take a Vulcan shot.  Note that it was not a Sidewinder shot.  The 104 remains untouchable through the whole thing but does have issues with making kills.  Could it be that with enough 104's you could keep the enemey defensive all the time?  This assumes that the 104 can hack it rnage wise, and with operational factors.

Shrug. I don;t know. The F-104 in theory should work as a vertical fighter and it should be an excellent missile thrower, but it doesn't and it isn't.  One theory, that I do not subscribe too, is that the plane is so long and slender that it has a moment arc in the turn or the turn and roll that induces a pendulum effect on both guns as they spew shells and missiles when they are launched off rail . In other words even when she  points as she should the Starfighter's nose apparently drifts in a barely noticeable circle, so you have to get  in close and hold her rock steady and fly her like she was your first ride.on a bronc. If that were the case, that still would not explain why SIDEWINDER, which should have been an easy carry and wouldn't care about a little nose drift as long as it could get an IR source,  did not like that plane at all.

 You really need to talk to an F-104 pilot.
 

 
Quote    Reply

earlm       6/22/2010 1:28:31 AM
I was in the 319FIS at Homestead AFB from 1964 to 1967. Prior to that I had amassed 600 hours in the F-86 and 1500 in the F-102. My last tour had been at Thule in the Deuce, and at 40 below it was a sprightly performer. Like a takeoff roll of 1300 feet! But my first ride in the F-104 - hey, I'd been on test hop orders since 1960 and was used to checking gauges on the roll! But after releasing the brakes on the -104B I'd managed to check 3 of the 5 gauges one checks after the burner light and my IP said quietly 'Rotate!'. We were nearing 180 KIAS! BTW If you don't get the gear handle up as the aircraft breaks ground at 186 you could trap the main gear doors open. No big deal; just nose up to slow below 250 KIAS and cycle the gear. No blow except to one's pride.

Anyway - the 319th was the ONLY combat flying outfit I've ever been in where we had payday afternoon off. The availability rate was limited ONLY by parts. The airplane was extremely reliable. The radar cold be changed in 20 minutes; the engine in 2 hours. Every comm/electronic box could be changed at the end of the runway in the quick check area in matter of a few minutes - and was. Our QC crew had spare boxes in their van and saved many a sortie.

ADC had an exercise where they put up targets in a racetrack and tested the unit on how many sorties it could crank out. One afternoon we put 60 sorties up in three hours. The pilots were RTB'ing in AB and the ground crews were giving us 15 minute turnarounds!

The F-104 is the ONLY airplane I ever heard of where the squadron dog would exceed all the Flight Manual red line limits - 750KIAS, M2.0 and 100C engine inlet temp, and the SLOW light which came on at 121C in the generator cooling air duct. The bird originally had the GE J79-3B engine, and by the time I got to fly it that engine was getting worn out. The engine frames were so warped now that hot air leaks would set off the AFT OVERHEAT light if one got too slow at altitude (generally under 315 KIAS or so). Finally a fine officer and gentleman Col (now Bgen, ret) Dave Rippetoe got us the J79-19 engine. This is the same engine that is in the F104S and a variant of the F-4E engine. The replacement was simple enough so that the majority were installed in the squadron.

The -3B gave us 9600 lbs in military and 14000 in AB - when it was new, that is. The -19 gave us 12850 in military and 18900 in AB, later reduced for peacetime longevity to 11870/17500. Suffice to say the increase in performance was outstanding. The old bird would take about 4 minutes to get to mach 2 from .9, covering about 100 miles and using about all the fuel one could spare. The new bird took 1 minute 45 seconds, 27 miles, and 1000 pounds of fuel!

We normally flew 1:20 sorties clean (no ext tanks); now we could fly 1:30. The bird now cruised at 35000 at 315 KIAS at 2700PPH. Two reasons for greater efficiency, a new nozzle and a higher compression ratio in the compressor. With 2 x 165 galon tip tanks we could now go HST-Big SpringTX, BGS to Palmdale. 2 hop XC from FL to CA.

We intercepted U-2 fairly often on their training flights, usually above 60000. Of course we had to wear p-suits. Fuel was our limitation on the old bird; we couldn't afford to wait more than about 5 minutes if he was behind on his ETA. But with the new bird! I was fortunate enough to fly the first U2 mission and during prebrief the controller at MOADS and I talked it over. Of course he had nothing in his computer about the bird's new performance. I asked to be rolled out 35 miles behind the U-2 at .9 mach at 35000. He did just that. I selected full Ab and started accelerating. As the bird pass 1.4 I started a gentle climb. At something like 18 miles (on a 20 nm scope) I saw his blip on our 'spinscan' ASG14 radar. I glanced at the gauges and saw we were 1.8 M passing 58000! I don't recall what the fuel gauge read but it was nothing to worry about. Completed the intercept and peeled off for home with about 2400 pounds of fuel left! In the old bird if we had 1200 left then we were in fat city! Gs. Yeah, just about everybody could out turn a -104 in the usual subsonic dogfight area. But the only birds that gave us a hard time - with the old engine! - were the -106 and the F-8. The secret was never slowing down and using the vertical to the max. We had a good gun and sight combo and practiced (some of us) deflection shooting out to 3500-4000 feet. We got to where we could hit the dart (5x12 feet) about 85% of the time at ranges exceeding 2500 feet using the radar ranging gunsight. The plan was to force the bogey into a turn and then phase our attacks so one bird was alway threatening the bogey. This is the TAC lead wingman switch concept. We thought of it and flew it as 'fluid four' without the wingmen, co

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Unlike the Sabre Jet   6/22/2010 11:30:38 AM
Which would NEVER get hit by SAM's, Herald?
 
It just makes more sense to use the F-4, PROPERLY, than send the F-86 over Hanoi.
 
You need to get past your love of the F-8...the Navy didn't love it.  It was the fighter they could put on the Essex's, but the F-4 was the a/c they wanted...and the a/c that made sense, in the end.
 
I'm not sure the US is going to deploy the ADEN/DEFA in the 1960's, defense politcs being what they were.  I don't dispute the technical excellence of the pieces, just that they weren't invented here and that's going to hurt them.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    enjoying the "conversation" so far...   6/22/2010 12:37:17 PM
.....
 
 
Just a few scattered quick questions:
on the point of an F-86's chance of survival in Viet Nam,
as a fighter, no thanks.
 
But as was mentioned: A-1s and A-6s provided adequate performance for their missions.
The F-86, in whatever form, wasn't any slower than a Sandy and was more maneuverable than any Intruder.
 
As to Sidewinder armament and guns:
would the various Sabre models fair any less successful with IR AIM-9s as any F-100s have over the years?
 
Seems that any later F-86s that were still airworthy (-D models with the radome and MightyMouse rockets?)
should easily have fit the same radar gunsight that F-100s carried,
and rocket-equipped Sabres should've done well as ground attack platforms.
Wth money and effort though, I could see the radome-equipped Sabres being configured to fire 4-6 of the radar-guided AIM-9s that Crusaders had capability for.
 
If anything, I might have tasked Nam Sabres as lower-level Sandy escorts (odd, when Sandies escorted CSAR-type helos).
But I certainly wouldn't have put it up at altitude,
guns, rockets, or missile equipped,
into an area where MiG-19s or -21s could've had at it.
 
Too obsolete for that era?
Well, Mustangs and Corsairs carried a lot of the early weight in Korea, and technically they were out of their league as top notch fighter vs fighter aircraft (piston props at a time when jets were becoming premier).
 
Although it didn't match the payload, would an F-86 have really faired any worse than an A-4 in the air (including range) ?
Although more modern A-4s experienced some considerable upgrades over their lifetime, was the Nam-era avionics really that sophisticated?
(no ARBS in the nose, no modern radars such as A-4 Super Skyhwaks were prposed with,
no complex ECM suite, etc...)
 
I wouldn't hesitate to use the Sabre as a ground pounder, but certainly not a fighter at altitude.
 
As to the guns not being invented here: well, in that era, we had Martin give the USAF the B-57 (and RB- models), and that was an American production of a foreign design, the British English Electric Canberra.
So I don't see guns being a problem (weren't we also on the verge of adopting a British 105mm gun design for our M60 MBT, to supercede a generation of 90mm types mounted on every Patton and Pershing-lineage tank prior?).
 
But as the US was becoming more enamored with the M61 (added to Phanttoms, etc), I don't see the USAF adopting yet another gun caliber/cartridge combo, especially in the middle of a war/conflict.
Now, if someone could've gotten the Army or USMC to consider an early equivalent of the M230 Chain Gun (*something using the ADEN/DEFA 30x113mm ammuntion) as armament of AFVs or ships, its performance in the ground attack role (heavier hitting than 20mm) might've encouraged the USAF to adopt it for that,
in a limited role.
But I don't see the USAF getting interested in it early enough to equip Sabres with it for ground attack in Nam.
Rather, the MightyMouse rocket-equipped ones would probably have seen more use as ground attackers.
And with their radomes, those are the ones that might have adapted to use the AIM-9C SARH radar-guided version (and might have encouraged Motorola to get the design refined and improved enough to be worthwhile: see the info here on it).
Only then would I have considered it for air to air use.
 
$.02.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       6/22/2010 12:53:46 PM
http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emcrook.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />
Which would NEVER get hit by SAM's, Herald?

 

It just makes more sense to use the F-4, PROPERLY, than send the F-86 over Hanoi.

 

You need to get past your love of the F-8...the Navy didn't love it.  It was the fighter they could put on the Essex's, but the F-4 was the a/c they wanted...and the a/c that made sense, in the end.

 

I'm not sure the US is going to deploy the ADEN/DEFA in the 1960's, defense politcs being what they were.  I don't dispute the technical excellence of the pieces, just that they weren't invented here and that's going to hurt them.


You can't learn a new way of war by talking about it. You send men out there to make mistakes and you hope the lucky ones, who you did not murder through your training stupidities and wrong theories, come back and tell you what they learned worked, and what did not. If you are not a complete idiot (waves hand over here; "NOT guilty your homor!") either you or some hide bound reactionary who still thinks that the pilum is a good idea, will insist that while you learn missile tactics, it might be a good idea to practice the old gunfighter tactics with gun-armed fighters while you work the missile kinks out.
 
Now I don't care if you use Sabres, or F-5s,  F-8s or the flying stilleto. Something has to be there to keep the Migs busy while you learn the wild weasel dance and how to use the new missile tactics that your Boyd brigade are taking too long to figure out. Theory was actually quite good. The problem was we didn't know the mechanics. Some men had to die so we could learn those mechanics. Fewer of them would have died if we could at least tied the PRVAF up in the close fight. Its damn hard to peel an alligator when someone hands you a knife, a rope, and the alligator, and tells you to skin it, without ever teaching you how to hogtie that damned lizard. At least you think you know how to use the knife!          
 
H.           
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    And again...   6/22/2010 1:30:54 PM
the F-4 did that, ONCE we learned to use plane and the AIM-7 properly...
 
The problem is less the platform and more the various services, learning what worked and didn't....and UN-LEARNING somethings.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    F-104 Article   6/22/2010 6:52:34 PM
Earl,
 
Thanks for the articles but I really do think that it draws a lot of very long bows. Basically what one of them is saying is that when the USAF deployed F-104s in Vietnam the North Vietnamese pissed their pants and wouldn't send their Mig-17s into action. My first question is, how did the ground controllers know that the aircraft on their radar screens were F-104s? There is no proof that they made that link. I would also make the point that if they did make the link, scaring off a few enemy fighters that are two generations older isn't that impressive an achievement. The North Vietnamese certainly weren't scared off from sending J-6s after the F-104's and the result was one loss in favour of the J-6.
 
The rave review of the F-104s capability in the vertical also leaves me unimpressed. It might work well against obsolete fighters but against the various other types of the same generation (Mach 2 types - just a classification for whoever was going on about the use of the term, I know they didn't operate at Mach 2) it didn't give a sufficient performance advantage over the pack to make up for its deficiencies in it's turn performance. Basically the type had to rely entirely upon surprising a comparable enemy with an ambush because it couldn't manouver to make a kill, no good for an air superiority type because they are expected to operate in enemy territory where the enemy's radar is in operation.
 
Apart from the F-104s deficiencies in the turn the USAF versions only had a ranging radar at a time when search radars were becoming standard, never had any BVR capability except in the F-104S which only Italy used and was hard and dangerous to fly. The proof in the pudding that the type was inadequate comes from the 0 to 4 kill ratio against Indian
Mig-21's in 1971 and the roughly even kill ratios by Chinese J-6s against Taiwanese F-104s, the J-6 being a generation behind the F-104. That is on top of the J-6 kill of the USAF F-104 kill in Vietnam.
 
The facts speak for themselves.
 
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