Russian Nuclear Bombers over Guam

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The Phantom II has always amazed me. It was designed as one of those late-'50s interceptors. It had a fairly poor thrust/weight ratio, which gave it mediocre acceleration and climb, a terrible turn radius, was bloated and heavy, and originally it didn't even have a gun. With all that against it the plane still managed to rack up a very good kill ratio in Vietnam. Part of that was due to the combination of radar and heat-seeking AIM-9 Sidewinders, and part of it was due to its pilots figuring out tactics that used its strengths and played down its weaknesses.

Plus it could take beating and still fly back to base.

[nikimcbee]

very good kill ratio in Vietnam

...post Top Gun/ Red Flag. Prior to that, it wasn't so good (1965(?) Operation Rolling Thunder)

I need to look it up.

[Oberon]

If I had to compare the Frightening to any US jet, I'd compare it to the F-104. They both flew in '54 and rolled out within a year of each other. Both were interceptors through and through, both had short legs and both were essentially a rocket with wings.
While the Lightning might have been able to out-pace the F-104 in most races, and keep up with it on the deck, the F-104 wins out because it can actually shoot at the enemy with its Sidewinders...whereas our Firestreaks and Red Tops just sort of go 'over there' and probably would wind up in a tree somewhere in East Germany.

Of course, this all took place in the late 1940s, early 1950s where the British government really wasn't quite sure whether it actually wanted an airforce or not...

Aaah, the things we could have done, the Miles M52, TSR-2, Black Prince...

We don't need an enemy, us Brits, we defeat ourselves!

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

...post Top Gun/ Red Flag. Prior to that, it wasn't so good (1965(?) Operation Rolling Thunder)

I need to look it up.

It was very bad 2.5:3 I believe now this is to blame on several factors the most notable one being that especially in the USAF "dog fighting" was not even practiced.Of course there where many problems with both the Aim-7 and Aim-9 and the Aim-4 used by some USAF F-4s was found to utterly useless.The Navy improved the Aim-9 under a different program from the USAF and they had an effect sidewinder the Aim-9D by 1966 while the USAF did not have the Aim-9E until 1967.It was found that most of the issues with the Aim-7 where caused by poor maintenance practices.

The Navy started Topgun in 1969 or 70 so they improved their ratio in 1972 the Air Force did not start an air combat specific program until after Vietnam was over so their ratio improved but much more marginally than the Navy did during Linebacker I & II i guess they thought that the Navy was wasting its time they got proven other wise.

The first Red Flag took place in 1975 a few months after the fall of Saigon.However unlike Topgun every single Air Force combat pilot will go through several Red Flags during their career while only a percentage of Navy pilots get to go to Topgun the idea being that they teach their squadron mates that have not been what they learned.Red Flag also covers the full spectrum of air combat not just dog fighting and everyone is involved from the pilot to the maintenance crews to the intel officers.I went though a Red Flag when I was assigned to an A-10 squadron the operations tempo was more intense than ones I experienced in support of actual combat operations to give you an idea just how intense a Red Flag is I was very happy not to be an A-10 driver because they looked much more strained than I did.The missions in the training are designed to be impossible you have to beat the absolute best pilots in the USAF no holds bared.Of course Navy and Marine and NATO units come to Red Flags all the time Usually the side benefit of going to Red Flag is they held at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas some are held up in Alaska though.

The USAF ratio was an embarrassing 2.2:1 from 1965 to 1972 while the Navy ratio was from 1965 to 1969(start and end of Rolling Thunder) 2.5:3 and in 1972 during Linebacker I & II it went up to 12.5:1 a notable improvement considering that the school had only been around for 3 years.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Mediocre acceleration and climb eh?

Yep. I never said it wasn't fast. The Phantom was one of only two aircraft at the time that was capable of sustained supersonic flight at sea level. The other was the F-105.

The records were all set with an empty airframe, no self-sealing tanks, no armor, no back-seater and enough fuel to make the attempt. Combat ready the plane was a pig.

Let's look at some real-world numbers:
Thrust/Weight ratios:
F-4: 0.86 at loaded weight, 0.58 at Max Take-Off Weight
MiG 21: 0.80 at gross weight. Phantom is better, but we knew that.
Lightning: 0.78.
F-104: 0.76 loaded, 0.54 MTOW
F-15: 1.12
F-16: 1.092

So you're right. For its time the Phantom was pretty impressive in speed, and yes, acceleration, but not when loaded. It wasn't a good turner, but neither was the MiG-21. The MiG-17, on the other hand, was a dogfighter, but missiles don't dogfight.

Actual all-up rate of climb:
F-104: 48,000 ft/min
MiG-21: 44,280 ft/min
F-4: 41,300 ft/min
F-16: 50,000 ft/min

While the F-104 looks good on paper, it has to be remembered that its loaded weight is not much different from its empty weight, not exactly carrying a lot of fuel or ordinance. A loaded Phantom is, as I said, mediocre.

[Oberon]

I believe we used to call it the 'Brick'.

Versatile aircraft though, can't knock it.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

It was very bad 2.5:3 I believe now this is to blame on several factors the most notable one being that especially in the USAF "dog fighting" was not even practiced.

You have to remember that the Air Force went into the 1960s with the same mindset they had from the '50s. The mission they trained for was stopping Soviet bombers from attacking the United States. Fast, unmaneuverable airplanes armed with missiles were needed to stop those high-altitude bombers, and fighter combat was considered to be a thing of the past. They went into Vietnam thinking that they would be able to stand off and shoot missiles. They didn't envision actual dogfights, which have a habit of slowing down to 500 knots or so, and require turning.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You have to remember that the Air Force went into the 1960s with the same mindset they had from the '50s. The mission they trained for was stopping Soviet bombers from attacking the United States. Fast, unmaneuverable airplanes armed with missiles were needed to stop those high-altitude bombers, and fighter combat was considered to be a thing of the past. They went into Vietnam thinking that they would be able to stand off and shoot missiles. They didn't envision actual dogfights, which have a habit of slowing down to 500 knots or so, and require turning.

Sounds tragically familiar. I believe our boffins considered scrapping the whole thing at one point, deciding that future wars would be fought between ICBMs and that there would be no use for aircraft.
In a war against the Soviet Union they may have had a point, but they forgot the rest of the world.

EDIT: To put a bit more meat on the bones of my comment, the 1957 Defence White Paper is what I refer to, although it doesn't mention the removal of the RAF (I think such things would have caused an uproar) it shows the decision to scale back interceptors in favour of SAM launchers, the Frightening only scraped through because it was too far advanced in planning to be worth stopping.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I believe we used to call it the 'Brick'.

Versatile aircraft though, can't knock it.

Now that I didn't know....that is also one of the names we gave to the Buccaneer, our last nuclear bomber.

She also took part in the Red Flag exercises and as far as I am aware always 'won' because of how low an altitude she could attack from meaning she never showed up on the US radar.

Best not dwell on this though, she was a bomber not a fighter or an interceptor.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I believe we used to call it the 'Brick'.

Versatile aircraft though, can't knock it.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Now that I didn't know....that is also one of the names we gave to the Buccaneer, our last nuclear bomber.

One of my favorite 'unofficial' nicknames were the whole series applied to the aircraft from Seversky/Republic.
Plane.......... Official Nickname.......... Unofficial Nickname
P-47........... Thunderbolt................ Jug (this is claimed in some sources to be short for "Juggernaut", but in fact refers to the shape of the plane if stood on its nose). This also led to the other nickname - "Seven-Ton Milk Bottle"
F-84........... Thunderjet.................. Hawg
F-105......... Thunderchief................ Thud, Thunderthud, Lead Sled
A-10........... Thunderbolt II.............. Warthog

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

One of my favorite 'unofficial' nicknames were the whole series applied to the aircraft from Seversky/Republic.
Plane.......... Official Nickname.......... Unofficial Nickname
P-47........... Thunderbolt................ Jug (this is claimed in some sources to be short for "Juggernaut", but in fact refers to the shape of the plane if stood on its nose). This also led to the other nickname - "Seven-Ton Milk Bottle"
F-84........... Thunderjet.................. Hawg
F-105......... Thunderchief................ Thud, Thunderthud, Lead Sled
A-10........... Thunderbolt II.............. Warthog

You got the A-10 somewhat wrong A-10 drivers call it simply "Hog" trust me I used to work with these guys everyday."Warthog" was the name that pilots and maintenance crews originally named it back in the late 70's but developed into simply "Hog" a long time before I was ever working around them.I used to love talking the F-16 and F-15 pilots they would always say how badly that wanted to fly the Hog.

I heard that RAF pilots where the ones to call the P-47 Jug after a milk jug due to its massive size and lack of appeal that the Spitfire had.


One of the more interesting nicknames goes to the B-1B officially the "Lancer" it is known a simply as "Bone".

The F-16 is another example of an unpopular official nick name Lockheed went with "Fighting Falcon"(after the Air Force Academy football team "Fighting Falcons") while many even in the company and also its test pilots wanted to call it "Viper" because its shape is like that of a vipers head when it strikes.F-16 pilots have called it the "Viper" ever since I hear that they do mean things to you if call it Fighting Falcon.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

That could be argued. As far as I am aware the kill ratio of the Lighting is 1:0(and that was a RAF Harrier whose pilot had ejected the plane kept flying so a Lightning was sent to destroy it.) it never got to actually intercept and shoot down an enemy aircraft so we can only take an educated guess as to how well it would actually perform.

Kill ratio 2:0 actually, if you include the Herc (63-7789?) stolen by a Crew Chief (Sgt Paul Adams Meyer) from Mildenhall. The Crew Chief had been refused leave over xmas and was making his own way. A QRA lightning pilot was told to stand down whilst a USAF pilot took his aircraft and came back minus one missile. The Herc was listed as 'crashed', near Alderney. You decide.

And if we're actually keeping scores then to be more accurate it would be Lightning 0 : Fire Lots.

A recommended read - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lightning-Bo.../dp/190811715X

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

"Warthog" was the name that pilots and maintenance crews originally named it back in the late 70's...

And I was around when the plane was new, and that's what they called it then. It's changed now? Fine. How does that make me "somewhat wrong"? Not my fault times changed out from under me.

I heard that RAF pilots where the ones to call the P-47 Jug after a milk jug due to its massive size and lack of appeal that the Spitfire had.

I don't know for sure. You could be right.

The F-16 is another example of an unpopular official nick name Lockheed went with "Fighting Falcon"(after the Air Force Academy football team "Fighting Falcons") while many even in the company and also its test pilots wanted to call it "Viper" because its shape is like that of a vipers head when it strikes.F-16 pilots have called it the "Viper" ever since I hear that they do mean things to you if call it Fighting Falcon.

I had a friend who worked on them back in the '91 Gulf War. He said because of the shape they all called them "Lawn Darts".

[Oberon]

I've heard Lawn Dart for the F-16s too.

Also, Lead Sled for the F-84, and Tent Peg/ground nail for the F-104.

The old joke with the F-84 was that at the end of the nose there was a little sensor that sniffed out the dirt at the end of the runway and then turned the controls on so the pilot could take off.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Tent Peg/ground nail for the F-104.

I had not heard that one!

The old joke with the F-84 was that at the end of the nose there was a little sensor that sniffed out the dirt at the end of the runway and then turned the controls on so the pilot could take off.

I have a book buried somewhere on the Korean airwar. One of the stories it tells is of the old straight-wing F-84-Es taking off on their first mission from a forward base, basically Marston Matting laid out in a big clearing. It was a bombing mission, and it seems that the fully-loaded Hawg caused the steel mat to bunch up under the wheels in a kind of wave mostion - not enough to see, but enough to slow them down. A large crowd of local villagers had turned up to watch the jets take off, and were standing at the far end of the runway. When the pilot realized he wasn't going to get airborne and had run out of space to stop in, he toggled off all his ordnance. The plane leaped into the air, barely clearing the trees at the end of the clearing, and the not-yet-armed bombs went bouncing down into the trees.

As the second pilot was ordered to stand down while they tried to figure out what the problem was, somebody noticed that the civilians had all disappeared.