No one favorite, but I do like the Hun, Super Sabre, and Phantom. I also think the F-86 and F-111 were really cool too. For the non-US aircraft, I like the Tornado and it's hard to leave out the ME-262.
That F-104 was one bad-ass plane.. IIRC, that was the plane that Yeager nearly died in - got into a flat spin and had to eject..burned the chit outta his face...
My cousin flew the F-100 during the mid-'60s in 'Nam.. He never spoke much about it though..
X'ceptin' the F-4 was an Interceptor (now that ought to piss of the F-4 drivers! ). The F-100 is very cool, but I have to go with the MiG Master, aka the F-8.
In that era, the YF-12a Interceptor, in this era the YF-23 Black Widow---Yup, I know that one never went into production, but the cool factor is over the top.
I have to go with the "sports car" of fighters: the F-86.
I nearly got to fly them. For the Fighter Ground Attack School I attended, they strongly considered using de-mothballed F-86s for the course, but went with hybrid F-80/T-33s instead, mostly because the hybrid AT-33 was a two-seater. Still, I did get 40 hours in a Korean War fighter of sorts. It was a revelation, I assure you.
I was never an air-to-air fighter pilot kind of guy. Ground attack was my thing. The two planes I wanted to fly - but never did - were the A-7 and the A-10. My years fell right in the slot when neither one was active, the A-7 in the process of being phased out and the A-10 phased in. Damn.
My Dad flew the F-86 and others. He was a career Air Force pilot. Also flew bombers for SAC. It would be interesting to hear his perspective on the planes he flew, but he has been gone now for over 10 years.
So many great fighters! I am a big fan of F-86s, and F-4s. When I was going to the USAF I wanted to fly F-16s or the A-10. Ended up going to the Navy and riding around in these. I can tell you it would accelerate when going near vertical. Getting turned and pointed back down when doing 1.5M approaching 50k' is interesting though. Awesome jet!
So many great fighters! I am a big fan of F-86s, and F-4s. When I was going to the USAF I wanted to fly F-16s or the A-10. Ended up going to the Navy and riding around in these. I can tell you it would accelerate when going near vertical. Getting turned and pointed back down when doing 1.5M approaching 50k' is interesting though. Awesome jet!
Interesting that no one's mentioned the F-15 Eagle or Strike Eagle yet..
Probably has something to do with when people served... none of them were in service yet while I was in. F-15, F-16, and the A-10 though we were reading about them.
F105..big,powerful and ballzy especially in Weasel attire..
This is my favorite. They were huge and unbelievably fast low level. Not a true fighter but in it's day touted as the fastest fighter at sea level and the largest single seat single engine fighter ever built. Their J-75 engine had a singe stage after burner and when it lit off you could hear it miles away. F-100s used to come thought Myrtle Beach AFB on a regular basis. I was fortunate to have a [bleep] supervisor that had been a crew chief on them so I got proficient on them. If you didn't know the trick to installing a drag chute on a Hun it was a fight. The F-4s were the Sierra Hotel fighters in my active duty days. IMO the best looking jet fighter was the F-106.
Why I remember the F105D. http://thewall-usa.com/guest.asp?recid=55653 Jim's Dad was base commander of Sheppard Air Force Base in the 1957 and 1958 era. My first meeting was Jim walking up to our house with a few buddies to introduce themselves and to invite me to the baseball team. I met his brother Ed(astronaut) at that time. I believe he was in flight training at that time overseas as I remember. They were very athletic and born leaders. Too bad we lost both doing for their country.
I guess my favorite was the F80, only because the T33 was my favorite at the time and it was a trainer. I also liked the F89D that was at the old Ladd AFB in Fairbanks, Alaska in the middle 50s.
one of the best looking Jet Fighters ever built in my book... even when camo'ed.... North American F 100 Super Sabre...
Video on their service in Vietnam.
The 2 Seater Trainers were the first ones used as the New Wild Weasel Missions...
Yep.
In my late teens, I got to see one real close. My neighbor (eight years my senior) was an Air Force Academy grad and jet jock. He would fly into our area, buzz his family home, land at the nearby airbase and they'd go pick him up. This was before cell phones...
On this day, I was running my Dad's 930 Case tractor, pulling a 15" Terrain King cutter, clipping a pasture. My bud saw me and lined me up with his Mom's house. He let the F-100 slip in from behind me and when he was over me, hit the afterburner. I about had a laundry incident...!!
I remember seeing a "large" red exhaust with heat waves. Now, you know he was pretty low... He then did an 8 point vertical roll, pealed out and headed for the air base.
I recently was thinking about him and thru the Air Force Retired Officers organization hooked up after many years. He put in 20 yrs., retired as a Lt. Col., had a fancy job with a major aerospace manufacturer, retiring again. He lives in Tuscon and was very interested in local neighborhood news, who was still alive, etc. We had a nice visit.
One of his sons, also an Air Force Academy grad, is a Brig. Gen., commanding a major air base. Another son was head of the Fed Swat team that pulled the remaining Boston bomber out of that boat.
F-14D Super Tomcat. Only 55 of this variant were produced.
+3. Granted it's an interceptor>fighter, and she's a big heavy bird, but brutish power and beautiful lines.
no sir. Pure fighter with significant interceptor capabilities, but a FIGHTER in the truest sense of the word. The F-4 in turn was an interceptor, with average fighter qualities. Bit don't mind me, I'm just a VS puke...
No sure it would ever win any beauty contests, but the English Electric Lightening was another amazing Cold War era interceptor.
Faster than even the Star Fighter or the later F15, the Lightening was one of the very few jets that could successfully intercept the U2..
In trials against the U2, successful intercepts were made up to 66000 feet, although test pilots had flown the Lightening up to altitudes of 88000 feet...
Yeah, I'm a sucker for the look of the Me262, too... in many ways it reminds me of the absolutely gorgeous German sports cars of the 50's, especially the Mercedes Benz 300SL.
The Tomcat, at least those with the big motors, were actually quite capable dog fighters. Get those wings out and the big flat airframe generated a lot of lift at slow speeds. I was fortunate to fly for a year and a half with a guy who was very good. This was the days prior to air-to-ground so all we did was air-to-air. In that year and half we fought hundreds of dogfights against every type of aircraft (F-15C, F-16C, F-16N, A-4F, F/A-18C/D, and others) and he lost only one engagement in that entire time. For reliability purposes we had a limitation on using the flaps during training dogfights, but if you did use them we could turn inside every other fighter once the speeds dropped after the first turn. It was impressive.
Butch, I have fond memories of the F-80/T-33. I flew the AT-33, which was a hybrid model. Think of it as either an F-80 with two seats or a T-33 with bomb, rocket, and gun capability. It was crude even compared to the 60s-era jets I trained in to get my wings. But it was an honest airplane with few faults - but two of those could get you dead pretty quick.
One fault involved the tip tanks. On takeoff, they were so heavy and you had so little aileron control that if a wing dropped, you had to be damn quick on rudder and aileron to keep from going in at a 90° bank. By the time you got flaps and gear up, it wasn't so bad, but it still took a lot of heavy pressure to roll with the tips full.
The second was that huge centrifugal compressor engine. The compressor was so big and heavy that it was VERY slow to accelerate. It could take up to 15 seconds from idle to near full power as the compressor disk laboriously sped up. Pull the throttle too soon on landing and if you needed power after that, you were SOL. We learned to keep at least 80-85% power all the way through the pattern, until the flare. The slow windup also meant you had to keep pace with the throttle and not advance it too rapidly or else you'd flood the combustion chambers with excess fuel and overtemp the engine. You could even burn through the engine walls in extreme cases. No "flooring" that beast!
No sure it would ever win any beauty contests, but the English Electric Lightening was another amazing Cold War era interceptor.
Faster than even the Star Fighter or the later F15, the Lightening was one of the very few jets that could successfully intercept the U2..
In trials against the U2, successful intercepts were made up to 66000 feet, although test pilots had flown the Lightening up to altitudes of 88000 feet...
looks like they borrowed some design features from various Migs
Not to be a name dropper but I have been fortunate enough to have several extended conversations with Gen. Chuck Yeager in the past several years. He told me that there was no question in his mind that the F-15 was the best fighter plane built to this point in time.
No sure it would ever win any beauty contests, but the English Electric Lightening was another amazing Cold War era interceptor.
Faster than even the Star Fighter or the later F15, the Lightening was one of the very few jets that could successfully intercept the U2..
In trials against the U2, successful intercepts were made up to 66000 feet, although test pilots had flown the Lightening up to altitudes of 88000 feet...
looks like they borrowed some design features from various Migs
Not sure about that as the very early concept dates back to 1946.. A little later but still in the early design phase, they brought in a British pilot who had flown F86's and asked for his input..
It was actually nearly cancelled (like so many British products) but it was the success of another English Electric design, the Canberra light bomber, which helped justify it. It seems the Canberra's service ceiling of 50,000 feet turned enough Government heads to prove the need for a high altitude interceptor..
Not to be a name dropper but I have been fortunate enough to have several extended conversations with Gen. Chuck Yeager in the past several years. He told me that there was no question in his mind that the F-15 was the best fighter plane built to this point in time.
RS
Concur. But when the F-14B (A+) & D came out with the engines they were supposed to have and coupled with the extra set of eyes in the cockpit, I'd pick the Tomcat..
They pretty much are ALL hard not to love...but we each still have our favorites... I love the lines of an F 100, along with the F 86 and just like the P 51, North American sure knew how to build a good looking fighter....
I grew up around F4s.... Love them, they looked badasssed from day one, but never thought they were as good looking as an F100.
And as brought up, the F 106 was also another wonderful and good looking plane....
Good reason it was called the Golden Age of Military Aviation, kind of like Aviations "Muscle Car" era....defintely a wonderful time to be in the Air Force....
and no intention of leaving out the great birds the US Navy employed either....
side note for Pete E.... might be the time I lived in England, but the Lightning was THE fighter plane for the RAF during those times... and a good looking bird on its own. I always considered it another favorite...definitely the "Spitfire" of the 1960s Cold War period.
I tell ya, growing up on Air Force bases in the 50s and 60s wasn't a dull or boring childhood, that's for darn sure... I know Digital Dan can attest to that...he was an AF Brat also...
They pretty much are ALL hard not to love...but we each still have our favorites... I love the lines of an F 100, along with the F 86 and just like the P 51, North American sure knew how to build a good looking fighter....
I grew up around F4s.... Love them, they looked badasssed from day one, but never thought they were as good looking as an F100.
And as brought up, the F 106 was also another wonderful and good looking plane....
Good reason it was called the Golden Age of Military Aviation, kind of like Aviations "Muscle Car" era....defintely a wonderful time to be in the Air Force....
and no intention of leaving out the great birds the US Navy employed either....
side note for Pete E.... might be the time I lived in England, but the Lightning was THE fighter plane for the RAF during those times... and a good looking bird on its own. I always considered it another favorite...definitely the "Spitfire" of the 1960s Cold War period.
I tell ya, growing up on Air Force bases in the 50s and 60s wasn't a dull or boring childhood, that's for darn sure... I know Digital Dan can attest to that...he was an AF Brat also...
Being a late 40s and 50s Air Force Brat, I saw a lot of airplanes. I guess the only military plane that I rode in was a C119 and it was a noisy betch. Got to see the T6, F80, T33, F86, F84, F89C7D, F100, F101, F102, and many more. It was a boyhood dream. My youngest son retired after 22yrs as a U2 crewchief. I'm wearing my Dragon Lady ball cap as I type. I have in my possession one of the forward side windscreens and an American flag that was in his plane that set an altitude, payload record. I know the English Electric Lightening is a nice plane, but in reality it would run out of gas trying to attain the altitude of the U2.
Was rummaging around in hill country NW of Chu Lai one day and got the chitt shot out of my chopper. Headed home squealing like a little girl and the B-Team took over on the recon mission. FAC was on station and picked up a couple of F4s from MAG 13, full ord/fuel, they barely had time to get the gear up before they were on station. FAC marked the target (bunker complex) and lead rolled in on the first run.
Later on the Lt. said he just had the pipper on the target when the master caution illuminated to announce the obvious. Total hydraulic system failure. Emergency procedure? Eject!
Couple of things happened pretty quick. One helluva blast at ground zero, right in the middle of the bunker complex. 2 chutes opened and the airstrike turned into a rescue mission, a successful one at that. They never took the first round of fire while grabbing the crew. Crazy Yankee Running Dogs, hey?
The Air Cav and Marine Corps bonded that night at their O'Club. Epic night...we drank the place dry.
Dan
PS: It was the the second and last time I know of that a F4 actually hit the target. A6s never missed. F100s couldn't hit a barn if they were inside. A1Es rocked. A4s were an area fire weapon.
X'ceptin' the F-4 was an Interceptor (now that ought to piss of the F-4 drivers! ). The F-100 is very cool, but I have to go with the MiG Master, aka the F-8.
JorgeI, you're right; it was designed as an interceptor to stop the "Red Horde" coming over the horizon....BUT once the Navy and the Air Farce figured out how to take advantage of the F-4's strong points (two J-79's in burner) and the various Migs' weak points, it was no contest in SE Asia or over the Sinai.
I've fought Mig 17's, 21's and 23's (which were the threat when I was on active duty) in the F-4 and IF you know what you're doing they are easily defeated.
It's sorta like a gunfight; you fight with what you have at the time and the Phantoom was it for many years!
Later, even in the F-14A with the "crummy engines" all that series Migs were considered "grapes" and no contest.
I love 'em all. Have seen an F-86 and a MiG-15 fly, the F-14, 15, 16 and 18, the Harrier, a pair of Ukrainian MiG-29s, and many attack aircraft. They all make me warm and fuzzy. But, to pick one, it would have to be the Tomcat. In an F-16 demo, it'll fly a box center stage with a snap roll on each side, the corners looking like a billiard ball of the cushion. Saw an F-14A fly the same box, with the same snap roll, in the same airspace, but the back end slid like a sprint car on dirt. What a machine!
one of the best looking Jet Fighters ever built in my book... even when camo'ed.... North American F 100 Super Sabre...
Video on their service in Vietnam.
The 2 Seater Trainers were the first ones used as the New Wild Weasel Missions...
Even with the Marine Corps around Danang we would occasionally get some F-100's to work. We also got some prop jobs, Corsairs, Skyraiders, etc. They were the easiest to work. The F-4 was a great fighter. Not so good at close air support. The A-4's were better. The ordinace guys got so they could turn around a section of A-4's with snake and nape in one hour. Pretty amazing.
Though not really a jet fighter the F-111 is one of my all time favorite looking jets. For a pure fighter it would be hard to beat the F-14 to me for looks.
The Fighter that was truly superior when it went into squadron service was the Me-262 Swallow. But it was too late to make a difference in the air war over Germany. Fortunately it wasn't introduced a year earlier!
In the present the F-15 is the most successful air superiority Fighter ever. But if you want an air to ground Fighter that could kick butt in air to air, the A-4 Skyhawk series was the best for the buck.
BTW, if anyone nominates the late model F-16's, I won't argue against it.
I've intentionally left out aircraft that have seen no air to air combat out of my choices
X'ceptin' the F-4 was an Interceptor (now that ought to piss of the F-4 drivers! ). The F-100 is very cool, but I have to go with the MiG Master, aka the F-8.
JorgeI, you're right; it was designed as an interceptor to stop the "Red Horde" coming over the horizon....BUT once the Navy and the Air Farce figured out how to take advantage of the F-4's strong points (two J-79's in burner) and the various Migs' weak points, it was no contest in SE Asia or over the Sinai.
I've fought Mig 17's, 21's and 23's (which were the threat when I was on active duty) in the F-4 and IF you know what you're doing they are easily defeated.
It's sorta like a gunfight; you fight with what you have at the time and the Phantoom was it for many years!
Later, even in the F-14A with the "crummy engines" all that series Migs were considered "grapes" and no contest.
Good morning to you sir! Excellent post and spot on with what I believe. The F-4's strong points were of course speed, acceleration, rate of climb & descent but the last thing you wanted to do was get into a turning, low altitude fur ball with the Migs and of course the fact it had no gun (the USAF F-4E did) was a huge disadvantage once you ran out of AIM-9s. As you know the AIM-7 was dogshit with a less than 10% kill rate against fighters. Cheers, j
North American F-86 it just had the lines and the look of what a jet fighter should be! A jet version of the P-51 mustang if you will! The Russian MiG-15 was pretty much the same sort of thing, the only reason I mention it was when I was a very young pilot, there as a hanger at the airport I worked at at the time that hand one in it along with a P-51 a P-47 and a Spanish ME-109, that guy had some money! Now its pretty much who has the best boxes and radars, there are a lot of great airplanes to choose just one, its like choosing to just shoot one rifle, we Americans don't do that!
Gotta vote for the F-15! I remember being at an airshow at Reese AFB in Lubbock, TX around 1988 or so, when an Eagle driver did a vertical takeoff or climb. Once the jet noise cleared, it was amazing how many car alarms he'd set off!
Beautiful aircraft! By my way of thinking, this was the last true gunfighter that saw combat. I've always thought an F-86 made with modern construction techniques, using fly-by-wire and powered by one of the F/A-18s GE-404s would make a perfect personal fighter aircraft!
I know the English Electric Lightening is a nice plane, but in reality it would run out of gas trying to attain the altitude of the U2.
Fuel consumption was always the weak point of the Lightening, but as an Interceptor, rate of climb and speed were seen to be more important. I think my the end of production later Marks could fly for 2 hours without refuelling, depending on how they were being flown of course.
Interestingly, they were one of the first aircraft of its type to be able to "supercruise"...
The quote below is some well cited information from Wiki and covers the trials with the U2.
"Climb
The Lightning possessed a remarkable climb rate. It was famous for its ability to rapidly rotate from take-off to climb almost vertically from the runway, though this did not yield the best time-to-altitude. The Lightning's trademark tail-stand manoeuvre exchanged airspeed for altitude; it could slow to near-stall speeds before commencing level flight. The Lightning’s optimum climb profile required the use of afterburners during takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the nose would be lowered for rapid acceleration to 430 knots (800 km/h) IAS before initiating a climb, stabilising at 450 knots (830 km/h). This would yield a constant climb rate of approximately 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s).[36][nb 3] Around 13,000 ft (4,000 m) the Lightning would reach Mach 0.87 and maintain this speed until reaching the tropopause, 36,000 ft (11,000 m) on a standard day.[nb 4] If climbing further, pilots would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause before resuming the climb.[16][36] A Lightning flying at optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft in under three minutes.[36]
The official ceiling of the Lightning was kept secret; low security RAF documents would often state in excess of 60,000 ft (18,000 m). In September 1962, Fighter Command organised interception trials on Lockheed U-2As at heights of around 60,000–65,000 ft (18,000–20,000 m), which were temporarily based at RAF Upper Heyford to monitor Soviet nuclear tests.[52][53][54] Climb techniques and flight profiles were developed to put the Lightning into a suitable attack position. To avoid risking the U-2, the Lightning was not permitted any closer than 5,000 ft (1,500 m) and could not fly in front of the U-2. For the intercepts, four Lightning F1As conducted eighteen solo sorties. The sorties proved that, under GCI, successful intercepts could be made at up to 65,000 ft. Due to sensitivity, details of these flights were deliberately avoided in the pilot log books.[55]
In 1984, during a NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height which they had previously been considered safe (thought to be 66,000 feet (20,000 m)). Records show that Hale also climbed to 88,000 ft (27,000 m) in his Lightning F.3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight but a ballistic climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and then puts the aircraft into a climb, exchanging speed for altitude. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against Lockheed F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily with the exception of the low-level supersonic acceleration, which was a "dead heat".[56] Lightning pilot and Chief Examiner Brian Carroll reported taking a Lightning F.53 up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) over Saudi Arabia at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark", noting that control-wise "[it was] on a knife edge".[57]
Brian Carroll compared the Lightning and the F-15C Eagle, having flown both aircraft, stating that: "Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lightning leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Takeoff roll is between 2,000 and 3,000 ft [610 and 910 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 ft [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 ft [500 m]". Chief Test Pilot for the Lightning Roland Beamont, who also flew most of the "Century series" US aircraft, stated his opinion that nothing at that time had the inherent stability, control and docile handling characteristics of the Lightning throughout the full flight envelope. The turn performance and buffet boundaries of the Lightning were well in advance of anything known to him.[58]"
Dug these old B&W pics out for you F-4 fans PhuCat RSVN '69..Resolution isn't great but I took these out of my aircraft on the way to the active.Most impressive ordinance if you look closely.
Thanks Doc even though I was around F-4's the Thud was my fave overall but we spent alot of short holds waiting for the wake turbulence from those J79's to dissipate especially as they took off two abreast most often.A takeoff roll behind four J79's in AB was bad juju for us tail draggers. I have some really nice color photos of evening strike mission launches I'll try to post later..
LOL! I can only imagine the wake turbulence from those jets!
They teach you about wake turbulence in ground school, but you have to experience it for yourself--one time--to really "get it". I had that one experience when I was about 50 hours into my flight training, taking off in a Cherokee 160 behind an American Airlines commuter jet. Did my usual smooth takeoff roll and was about 6 feet off the deck when the wake turbulence slammed me back down on the runway... I give those jets lots more room than "the book" says you should, since then!!!
LOL! I can only imagine the wake turbulence from those jets!
They teach you about wake turbulence in ground school, but you have to experience it for yourself--one time--to really "get it". I had that one experience when I was about 50 hours into my flight training, taking off in a Cherokee 160 behind an American Airlines commuter jet. Did my usual smooth takeoff roll and was about 6 feet off the deck when the wake turbulence slammed me back down on the runway... I give those jets lots more room than "the book" says you should, since then!!!
It can get real sporty landing behind a C-5 in a C-130, especially if you're light.
I think so???...Its amazing that an aircraft that first flew in the late 1940's is still (just about) in service today with NASA (or the CIA depending who you believe!) operating three highly modified versions over Afghanistan ...
LOL! I can only imagine the wake turbulence from those jets!
They teach you about wake turbulence in ground school, but you have to experience it for yourself--one time--to really "get it". I had that one experience when I was about 50 hours into my flight training, taking off in a Cherokee 160 behind an American Airlines commuter jet. Did my usual smooth takeoff roll and was about 6 feet off the deck when the wake turbulence slammed me back down on the runway... I give those jets lots more room than "the book" says you should, since then!!!
It can get real sporty landing behind a C-5 in a C-130, especially if you're light.
For numbers of production and numbers of air forces using it, the F-4 Phantom series beats all other Western Cold War aircraft. The problem is, if it's a problem, that it did EVERYTHING well but was a master of none.
The current F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet has similar virtues and vices
I know the English Electric Lightening is a nice plane, but in reality it would run out of gas trying to attain the altitude of the U2.
Fuel consumption was always the weak point of the Lightening, but as an Interceptor, rate of climb and speed were seen to be more important. I think my the end of production later Marks could fly for 2 hours without refuelling, depending on how they were being flown of course.
Interestingly, they were one of the first aircraft of its type to be able to "supercruise"...
The quote below is some well cited information from Wiki and covers the trials with the U2.
"Climb
The Lightning possessed a remarkable climb rate. It was famous for its ability to rapidly rotate from take-off to climb almost vertically from the runway, though this did not yield the best time-to-altitude. The Lightning's trademark tail-stand manoeuvre exchanged airspeed for altitude; it could slow to near-stall speeds before commencing level flight. The Lightning’s optimum climb profile required the use of afterburners during takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the nose would be lowered for rapid acceleration to 430 knots (800 km/h) IAS before initiating a climb, stabilising at 450 knots (830 km/h). This would yield a constant climb rate of approximately 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s).[36][nb 3] Around 13,000 ft (4,000 m) the Lightning would reach Mach 0.87 and maintain this speed until reaching the tropopause, 36,000 ft (11,000 m) on a standard day.[nb 4] If climbing further, pilots would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause before resuming the climb.[16][36] A Lightning flying at optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft in under three minutes.[36]
The official ceiling of the Lightning was kept secret; low security RAF documents would often state in excess of 60,000 ft (18,000 m). In September 1962, Fighter Command organised interception trials on Lockheed U-2As at heights of around 60,000–65,000 ft (18,000–20,000 m), which were temporarily based at RAF Upper Heyford to monitor Soviet nuclear tests.[52][53][54] Climb techniques and flight profiles were developed to put the Lightning into a suitable attack position. To avoid risking the U-2, the Lightning was not permitted any closer than 5,000 ft (1,500 m) and could not fly in front of the U-2. For the intercepts, four Lightning F1As conducted eighteen solo sorties. The sorties proved that, under GCI, successful intercepts could be made at up to 65,000 ft. Due to sensitivity, details of these flights were deliberately avoided in the pilot log books.[55]
In 1984, during a NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height which they had previously been considered safe (thought to be 66,000 feet (20,000 m)). Records show that Hale also climbed to 88,000 ft (27,000 m) in his Lightning F.3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight but a ballistic climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and then puts the aircraft into a climb, exchanging speed for altitude. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against Lockheed F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily with the exception of the low-level supersonic acceleration, which was a "dead heat".[56] Lightning pilot and Chief Examiner Brian Carroll reported taking a Lightning F.53 up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) over Saudi Arabia at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark", noting that control-wise "[it was] on a knife edge".[57]
Brian Carroll compared the Lightning and the F-15C Eagle, having flown both aircraft, stating that: "Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lightning leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Takeoff roll is between 2,000 and 3,000 ft [610 and 910 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 ft [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 ft [500 m]". Chief Test Pilot for the Lightning Roland Beamont, who also flew most of the "Century series" US aircraft, stated his opinion that nothing at that time had the inherent stability, control and docile handling characteristics of the Lightning throughout the full flight envelope. The turn performance and buffet boundaries of the Lightning were well in advance of anything known to him.[58]"
Pete Some of the Migs could also make a run at a U2, but like your Electric lightening the couldn't sustain the 65,000 feet. Now the U2's ceiling is quite a bit higher than 70,000 feet. I know what wiki says, but it ain't right on the U2s altitude capability. While it was like a kid running and jumping as high as he could reach, you fall down. That was the Migs and Electric Lightening. The U2 continued on at the altitude for many hours. The Electric Lightening is a good plane, but not trying to intercept the U2. By the way, the old Canberras are still used for reconnaissance by the USA.
I know the English Electric Lightening is a nice plane, but in reality it would run out of gas trying to attain the altitude of the U2.
Fuel consumption was always the weak point of the Lightening, but as an Interceptor, rate of climb and speed were seen to be more important. I think my the end of production later Marks could fly for 2 hours without refuelling, depending on how they were being flown of course.
Interestingly, they were one of the first aircraft of its type to be able to "supercruise"...
The quote below is some well cited information from Wiki and covers the trials with the U2.
"Climb
The Lightning possessed a remarkable climb rate. It was famous for its ability to rapidly rotate from take-off to climb almost vertically from the runway, though this did not yield the best time-to-altitude. The Lightning's trademark tail-stand manoeuvre exchanged airspeed for altitude; it could slow to near-stall speeds before commencing level flight. The Lightning’s optimum climb profile required the use of afterburners during takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the nose would be lowered for rapid acceleration to 430 knots (800 km/h) IAS before initiating a climb, stabilising at 450 knots (830 km/h). This would yield a constant climb rate of approximately 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s).[36][nb 3] Around 13,000 ft (4,000 m) the Lightning would reach Mach 0.87 and maintain this speed until reaching the tropopause, 36,000 ft (11,000 m) on a standard day.[nb 4] If climbing further, pilots would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause before resuming the climb.[16][36] A Lightning flying at optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft in under three minutes.[36]
The official ceiling of the Lightning was kept secret; low security RAF documents would often state in excess of 60,000 ft (18,000 m). In September 1962, Fighter Command organised interception trials on Lockheed U-2As at heights of around 60,000–65,000 ft (18,000–20,000 m), which were temporarily based at RAF Upper Heyford to monitor Soviet nuclear tests.[52][53][54] Climb techniques and flight profiles were developed to put the Lightning into a suitable attack position. To avoid risking the U-2, the Lightning was not permitted any closer than 5,000 ft (1,500 m) and could not fly in front of the U-2. For the intercepts, four Lightning F1As conducted eighteen solo sorties. The sorties proved that, under GCI, successful intercepts could be made at up to 65,000 ft. Due to sensitivity, details of these flights were deliberately avoided in the pilot log books.[55]
In 1984, during a NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height which they had previously been considered safe (thought to be 66,000 feet (20,000 m)). Records show that Hale also climbed to 88,000 ft (27,000 m) in his Lightning F.3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight but a ballistic climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and then puts the aircraft into a climb, exchanging speed for altitude. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against Lockheed F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily with the exception of the low-level supersonic acceleration, which was a "dead heat".[56] Lightning pilot and Chief Examiner Brian Carroll reported taking a Lightning F.53 up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) over Saudi Arabia at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark", noting that control-wise "[it was] on a knife edge".[57]
Brian Carroll compared the Lightning and the F-15C Eagle, having flown both aircraft, stating that: "Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lightning leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Takeoff roll is between 2,000 and 3,000 ft [610 and 910 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 ft [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 ft [500 m]". Chief Test Pilot for the Lightning Roland Beamont, who also flew most of the "Century series" US aircraft, stated his opinion that nothing at that time had the inherent stability, control and docile handling characteristics of the Lightning throughout the full flight envelope. The turn performance and buffet boundaries of the Lightning were well in advance of anything known to him.[58]"
Pete Some of the Migs could also make a run at a U2, but like your Electric lightening the couldn't sustain the 65,000 feet. Now the U2's ceiling is quite a bit higher than 70,000 feet. I know what wiki says, but it ain't right on the U2s altitude capability. While it was like a kid running and jumping as high as he could reach, you fall down. That was the Migs and Electric Lightening. The U2 continued on at the altitude for many hours. The Electric Lightening is a good plane, but not trying to intercept the U2. By the way, the old Canberras are still used for reconnaissance by the USA.
If you read the article you will see the U2 was intercepted successfully a number of times by the Lightening. Could both planes fly higher? Sure..Given the Lightening could be pitched up to 87,000' I think sustained flight up to 70,000 or so wasn't unrealistic..
The real limiting factor for the interceptions would have been radar detection of the U2..
It was thought at the time that Soviet radars could not track anything above about 65, 000' so that may have been why that altitude was chosen for the trials? Plus the higher the U2 flew, the more dangerous it was, so perhaps the trials simply did not justify the added danger?
You mention the Canberra..that originally had a published operational ceiling of 48,000' to 50,000' depending on the Mark, but in 1957, the RAF managed to get one up to 70,000' and set a then world altitude record..Again, a big difference to an operational ceiling but still quite a feat for the day..
Prior to the U2 becoming online, the RAF flew a number of overflights of the Soviet Union in the Canberra, and in one case a plane sustained damage from enemy fire but managed to get back to friendly territory safely; sadly a taste of things to come with Powers..
Edited to add, the very first fatal U2 crash was with a RAF pilot at the controls and it was during training in the US. A handful of RAF pilots were trained to fly the U2 and did fly recce missions..
Apparently in some sort of legal/political gesture, before the flights commenced, legal ownership of the U2 was transferred to the British Government and it was then transferred back to the US on landing! I think British operational flights were stopped after the Powers incident, at least officially anyway..
As a far as pretty fighters it's hard to beat the Grumman F-11F Tiger or the Hawker Hunter.
The EE Lighting was indeed a piece of work. I had a CO who had attended the RAF Empire Test pilot School as an Exchange officer. He did his graduation thesis and flight test on the Lightning. On that flight, they towed the jet to the end of the runway, he started, launched from Boscombe Down and went over the channel and accelerated to something over Mach 2 and slowed to subsonic and returned to Boscombe Down and landed with a low-fuel light. Total flight time? 13 minutes.
As far as favorites, while flying the the TA-4J in flight school was indeed a treat and certainly one life's great experiences but it's not a fighter. When it came to heading feet dry onto bad guy country I loved having Tomcats aboard. You knew with 2 Phoenix, 2 Sparrows and 2 Winders that they could start shooting at 50 miles and work their way in to protect you. Here's a scanned picture one of my escorts as we came off the tanker during Desert Storm. Make me fell all warm and fuzzy inside to have these guys aboard.
^^Nice pic of a 'Black Aces' jet. I wanted soooo bad for MiG-23 or -25 to come up and play. Had they tried their high speed, high altitude run on us they would have been VERY surprised at how far away we could shoot them with the Phoenix.
Here's another scanned one of that era. I sure wish we had digital back then vice my Nikon F4. I also was mailing film home from that cruise and four rolls went missing. I wish I had those shots!
With the two VF-84 birds I'm betting this was a TARPS escort mission.
Worse maybe.... Iran was the only operator of the F-14 aside from the USN.
The real shame of course is what the mad mullahs have done to Iran. Only a matter of time until sanity returns but as bad as the Shah was the last almost 50 years have taken a country that has a whole lot going for it and destroyed it. I have co-worker who was stationed there as a USAF Major working on radar in the days of the Shah and it was a very different place.
Worse maybe.... Iran was the only operator of the F-14 aside from the USN.
The real shame of course is what the mad mullahs have done to Iran. Only a matter of time until sanity returns but as bad as the Shah was the last almost 50 years have taken a country that has a whole lot going for it and destroyed it. I have co-worker who was stationed there as a USAF Major working on radar in the days of the Shah and it was a very different place.
IIRC correctly, wasn't Brit businessman arrested a few years back for trying to sell parts to the Iranians for their Tomcats?
It is a real shame about Iran; in the days of the Shah, they allowed access to airbases and all sorts of similar co-operation for the Wests overflights and general eves dropping on of the Soviet Union..
Fear the bones on a patch? Ha! You want bones VF-103 has Ensign Jack Ernie and has for a long time. They were with the Jolly Rogers with us in CVW-8 before the 84 become 103.
Nearly 60 years after Ensign Jack Ernie was, according to Navy legend, shot down and killed during the 1945 battle of Okinawa, the aviator’s memory lives on in the F-14 Tomcat squadron that bears the unit’s original name and skull-and-crossbones insignia.
Fighter Squadron 103’s Jolly Rogers honor his last request by carrying Ernie’s skull and two crossed femurs in a glass case wherever they go, most recently on a Middle East deployment aboard the USS John F. Kennedy.
“He’s a full-time squadron member,” said Jolly Rogers aviator Lt. David Reade. “He’s on our flight schedule and our roster. He contributes a great deal to our successes and morale.”
Ernie’s family, squadron legend says, presented the skull and two femurs when his remains were recovered after the war. Squadron officers say they don’t know, however, what year that was.
The Jolly Rogers name has been carried by four fighter squadrons over the past 61 years, only coming to VF-103 in 1995.
Ernie, who was a Fighter Squadron 17 naval aviator during World War II, has deployed aboard dozens of carriers and to numerous air stations in his present service.
Tens of thousands of sailors know his story.
“Everybody knows about the bones of Jack Ernie,” Reade said.
“He’s been on board several carriers with us,” said the Jolly Rogers’ skipper, Cmdr. David Landess. “We did carrier qualifications on USS Ronald Reagan last year, and he’s gone on all the detachments we’ve had to Naval Air Station Key West (Fla.) and Naval Air Station Fallon (Nev.).”
Ernie is looked after by the squadron’s bones control officer.
“It’s kind of nice, but does bring a little pressure,” said the BCO, Lt. j.g. Matt Woo.
The BCO is always the newest pilot in rank and time in the squadron.
“It’s a right of passage for the junior pilot,” said Woo, who reported to the squadron in early June. “That’s the tradition, and Jack wouldn’t have it any other way.”
The advice given to Woo by the outgoing BCO?
“Basically, don’t lose the bones,” he said. “Also, don’t go into any dark parking lots by yourself.
“It’s an honor to carry his bones, but also a burden because of the theft attempts,” he explained. “You’re either the goat or a hero.”
Because the skull and crossbones draw so much attention, there have been many kidnapping attempts throughout Ernie’s long career.
“He’s highly sought after … by other squadrons,” said Landess. “There’s one or two strong attempts each year.
“I was successful in kidnapping him,” Landess said, explaining it was during a previous tour with a different squadron. “I’ve destroyed all the pictures since I’ve become the CO of this squadron.”
The Jolly Rogers name and skull-and-crossbones insignia were created by their first commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Blackburn, in 1943. Blackburn is said to have made the decision partially based on the aircraft that they flew, the F4U Corsair, and partially on the off-duty reputation of early carrier pilots.
While most of Ernie’s time is spent in the squadron’s ready room, it’s not all work for him. He’s a regular guest at squadron functions, or out on overseas liberty — the Navy word for time spent ashore.
But don’t expect trouble from Ernie. Gone is the “work hard, play hard” mentality of those earlier carrier pilots.
“We’re a good group now,” said Reade, “not like the boys of long ago.”
That doesn’t mean Ernie won’t have a drink when he’s out in town.
“He has a shot on top of his box, in case he has the urge to drink,” Landess said.
“Jack Daniels,” Woo later clarified.
Ernie obviously draws a lot of attention when he’s off the ship.
“They want to know who would carry a human head in a box,” Woo said.
“You get a lot of stares,” said Reade. “It’s a good way to share … naval aviation with the rest of the world.”
People also see the lengths that the aviators will go to honor Navy tradition.
“It’s not morbid; it’s more of a morale thing,” Landess said. “He’s an icon. It’s a rallying point, a part of our long history that we’re proud of.”
Even with more than a half-century of sea duty, Ernie has never been promoted. “He enjoys his status as a junior officer,” Landess said. “If he had continued to promote, he’d have had to retire years ago. He wants to stay a JO.”
The Jolly Rogers’ current deployment will be their last in the F-14. VF-103 will be switching to the two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornet starting next year, but the Jolly Rogers name will follow them, as will Ernie.
“Ensign Ernie will be there,” said Landess, who recently made his 1,000th carrier landing. “He’s the most experienced aviator in the squadron.”
Historical details about Ernie’s World War II exploits are as sketchy as his recovery and return to the Jolly Rogers.
Cmdr. Jeremy Gillespie, director of the Naval Historical Center’s Warfare Division, said that his researchers can’t find any official information about Ernie — neither disproving nor proving — the squadron’s story.
Gillespie himself, however, remembers a different tale of the bones. While serving aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1990s, he remembers seeing the bones in the VF-84 Jolly Rogers’ ready room.
“The story that was told in the wardroom at the time was that the individual who donated the bones had been a squadron member,” Gillespie said from Washington, D.C., recently. “The guy knew he was dying [of cancer], so he willed two femur bones and his skull to have on display. They sure looked like real bones to me.”
“Whether there’s enough proof to believe it’s the individual [Ernie] or a cool drinking story, I don’t know,” he said.
Mr. Bones on a patch? Ha! He's full up, escorted everywhere by the junior officer in the squadron.
The Jolly Rogers history is a great one, as is the legacy of that squadron. And it was fun when they came to play, just before they disbanded and lost their Tomcats.
Mr. Bones on a patch? Ha! He's full up, escorted everywhere by the junior officer in the squadron.
The Jolly Rogers history is a great one, as is the legacy of that squadron. And it was fun when they came to play, just before they disbanded and lost their Tomcats.
Jolly Rogers are still there. They just changed from VF-84 to VFA-103 and from Tomcats to F/A-18F's. Part of Air Wing 7.
The F4 is a terrible fighter, to heavy and unmaneuverable. They didn't put guns on them until they starting losing a lot of them in air combat. It was outclassed by Migs.
So many great fighters! I am a big fan of F-86s, and F-4s. When I was going to the USAF I wanted to fly F-16s or the A-10. Ended up going to the Navy and riding around in these. I can tell you it would accelerate when going near vertical. Getting turned and pointed back down when doing 1.5M approaching 50k' is interesting though. Awesome jet!
It was M61 compatible in several variants but I never saw one with a cannon in two deployments.
For the F-111 defensive meant light both burners and head for the deck. I don't think short of a B-1 that anything could hang low and fast with them for long.
Saw HUD footage from an F/A-18 on the Fallon range once, he rolled and pulled down onto the F-111 who tapped burner and by the time the Hornet was even close the 111 had 500 kts of airspeed on the Hornet and egressing out of range.
During Desert Storm an EF-111 got jumped by an Iraqi Mig-29. The pilot selected "hard ride" on the autopilot and 200' and the 29 flew into the ground trying to convert on them. Air Force, who hates tactical EW, didn't give them a kill.
Worse maybe.... Iran was the only operator of the F-14 aside from the USN.
The real shame of course is what the mad mullahs have done to Iran. Only a matter of time until sanity returns but as bad as the Shah was the last almost 50 years have taken a country that has a whole lot going for it and destroyed it. I have co-worker who was stationed there as a USAF Major working on radar in the days of the Shah and it was a very different place.
IIRC correctly, wasn't Brit businessman arrested a few years back for trying to sell parts to the Iranians for their Tomcats?
It is a real shame about Iran; in the days of the Shah, they allowed access to airbases and all sorts of similar co-operation for the Wests overflights and general eves dropping on of the Soviet Union..
I don't know if a Brit was involved, but as a result of efforts to sell parts to Iran all the F-14s made it to the front of the line for destruction at Davis-Monthan. Except for a few in museums, they are all gone.
A mod installed a M-61 internally in the "bomb bay". It had a blister for the barrels to shoot under the plane. The F-106 (or some of them) had a M-61 installed where the center missile rail was and extended down to shoot.
The F4 is a terrible fighter, to heavy and unmaneuverable. They didn't put guns on them until they starting losing a lot of them in air combat. It was outclassed by Migs.
As a far as pretty fighters it's hard to beat the Grumman F-11F Tiger or the Hawker Hunter.
The EE Lighting was indeed a piece of work. I had a CO who had attended the RAF Empire Test pilot School as an Exchange officer. He did his graduation thesis and flight test on the Lightning. On that flight, they towed the jet to the end of the runway, he started, launched from Boscombe Down and went over the channel and accelerated to something over Mach 2 and slowed to subsonic and returned to Boscombe Down and landed with a low-fuel light. Total flight time? 13 minutes.
As far as favorites, while flying the the TA-4J in flight school was indeed a treat and certainly one life's great experiences but it's not a fighter. When it came to heading feet dry onto bad guy country I loved having Tomcats aboard. You knew with 2 Phoenix, 2 Sparrows and 2 Winders that they could start shooting at 50 miles and work their way in to protect you. Here's a scanned picture one of my escorts as we came off the tanker during Desert Storm. Make me fell all warm and fuzzy inside to have these guys aboard.
The F4 is a terrible fighter, to heavy and unmaneuverable. They didn't put guns on them until they starting losing a lot of them in air combat. It was outclassed by Migs.
Close. Outclassed as a blanket statement is not quite fair or accurate: While lacking in turn RATE, it outclassed the migs in other areas such as climb/dive rate and of course much better missile armaments. Bottom line, don't get in a low altitude turning fight with Mig 17s, 19s or even 21s, unless you know WTF u are doing. Once we remembered how to FIGHT and not just intercept, our kills ratios were significantly higher than Migs. Yes, TRAINING was a big component. The Navy F-4s NEVER got a gun whilst the USAF F4-E variant and follow-ons did.
Overall it was a SUPERB airframe and an especially good fighter-bomber, outclassed is a bit of a stretch.
IIRC it was that experience with the F4 (and possibly other fighters) in RVN that convinced the powers that be that guns really weren't obsolete, a thought that had some vogue in the late 50's and early 60's when those same PTB figured heat and radar guided air to air missiles had supplanted any need for close in gun fighting.
The F4 is a terrible fighter, to heavy and unmaneuverable. They didn't put guns on them until they starting losing a lot of them in air combat. It was outclassed by Migs.
Close. Outclassed as a blanket statement is not quite fair or accurate: While lacking in turn RATE, it outclassed the migs in other areas such as climb/dive rate and of course much better missile armaments. Bottom line, don't get in a low altitude turning fight with Mig 17s, 19s or even 21s, unless you know WTF u are doing. Once we remembered how to FIGHT and not just intercept, our kills ratios were significantly higher than Migs. Yes, TRAINING was a big component. The Navy F-4s NEVER got a gun whilst the USAF F4-E variant and follow-ons did.
Overall it was a SUPERB airframe and an especially good fighter-bomber, outclassed is a bit of a stretch.
I think the air-to-air missiles of that era also let the F4 down as well..
I suspect the early kill ratio would have been a lot better had those things gone bang when/where they were supposed too!
The F4 is a terrible fighter, to heavy and unmaneuverable. They didn't put guns on them until they starting losing a lot of them in air combat. It was outclassed by Migs.
Close. Outclassed as a blanket statement is not quite fair or accurate: While lacking in turn RATE, it outclassed the migs in other areas such as climb/dive rate and of course much better missile armaments. Bottom line, don't get in a low altitude turning fight with Mig 17s, 19s or even 21s, unless you know WTF u are doing. Once we remembered how to FIGHT and not just intercept, our kills ratios were significantly higher than Migs. Yes, TRAINING was a big component. The Navy F-4s NEVER got a gun whilst the USAF F4-E variant and follow-ons did.
Overall it was a SUPERB airframe and an especially good fighter-bomber, outclassed is a bit of a stretch.
I think the air-to-air missiles of that era also let the F4 down as well..
I suspect the early kill ratio would have been a lot better had those things gone bang when/where they were supposed too!
Just the AIM-7s. Pete, DISMAL kill ratio of about 7%. The AIM-9 though, was a sure killer.
The F-4 will never win many awards as a knife fighter, but as Jorge points out, it had its virtues. Their problem in early Vietnam was that they had an interceptor mentality with systems that simply were not reliable enough to be effective. Then, when they did end up the knife fight they did not have the skills to optimize their system and deny the North Vietnamese MiGs theirs. When it comes to dogfighting, the person matters much more than the aircraft. I've watched old A-4Fs beat the crap out of every 4th gen US fighter. A good friend of mine, who learned from the best ACM pilot I ever witnessed, took a T-45 and on a couple of occasions beat 4th gen fighters during the TopGun graduation hop. Talk about humble pie! That's a flight where you all brief in an auditorium and are given a rendezvous point, a frequency to talk on and time. You have no idea what you will fight. There is everything from MiGs, most of the USAF fighters, a P-51 and/or Corsair and training jets parked on the ramp and taking off at the same time. It's a blast! Pilots today do much less pure BFM training than we did in the early 90's and before. Quite frankly, with AIM-9Xs and JHMCS, you don't need to. Taking the JHMCS and HOBS missiles off the table, if you have two equally bad sticks, the result will be some random outcome based on the maneuvers they happened to perform. It's when you have two equally excellent pilots that a little extra thrust, a little extra turn rate, a little extra high AoA controllability all start to make a difference.
When I was a kid I always wanted to become an F-15 pilot. Of course, growing up in Canada that was pretty much impossible as the go to air force jet up here was the CF-18.
I know it's an interceptor, not a fighter, but I'll throw the Avro Arrow into the mix simply for patriotic reasons. Of course, they never saw active service.
When I was a kid I always wanted to become an F-15 pilot. Of course, growing up in Canada that was pretty much impossible as the go to air force jet up here was the CF-18.
I know it's an interceptor, not a fighter, but I'll throw the Avro Arrow into the mix simply for patriotic reasons. Of course, they never saw active service.
SS
We hosted a Canadian CF-18 squadron to Miramar, and in my experience the Canadian CF-18 pilots are excellent! They get the absolute most out of their aircraft.
A mod installed a M-61 internally in the "bomb bay". It had a blister for the barrels to shoot under the plane. The F-106 (or some of them) had a M-61 installed where the center missile rail was and extended down to shoot.
Dave the 37th TAC fighter wing was at Phucat while I was there, you could hardly walk in the weapons shack as there were more assorted gun pods 7.62 & 20mm than aircraft to fly em because of ammo shortages... but damn if we didn't have more beer than you could drink in a lifetime or give away ! Good ole supply, you could always count on them coming through with exactly what you DON'T need !!
Edit to add: The F-100's were just leaving when I arrived and replaced by F-4's. The 100 was a decent airplane but used almost all of the 10K runway when loaded with napalm or MK 82's.
Some good info here on the Snake kills. : Winderkills
Total numbers are really not that a valid measure of effectiveness when you consider how many were fired outside parameters. The USN had a better overall kill ratio over the AF for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the Navy learned to fight earlier (Top Gun), the AF was relegated to flying those almost suicidal "Route Packs", AIM-7s were radar beam riders, tough to keep locked if you were jumped (and really designed for the interceptor role to hit slower, less agile bombers) and also the AF had initially ONE dedicated squadron as a "Dogfighter" which was the 555th and they were good, REAL GOOD. Finally when real warriors like Robin Olds were given a freer rain, combined with training at Top Gun/Red Flag, by war's end the US/Gook ratio was completely one sided. Also,I'm betting if one divides the ratio of missiles fired v kills between the two services the numbers will differ.
Some good info here on the Snake kills. : Winderkills
Total numbers are really not that a valid measure of effectiveness when you consider how many were fired outside parameters. The USN had a better overall kill ratio over the AF for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the Navy learned to fight earlier (Top Gun), the AF was relegated to flying those almost suicidal "Route Packs", AIM-7s were radar beam riders, tough to keep locked if you were jumped (and really designed for the interceptor role to hit slower, less agile bombers) and also the AF had initially ONE dedicated squadron as a "Dogfighter" which was the 555th and they were good, REAL GOOD. Finally when real warriors like Robin Olds were given a freer rain, combined with training at Top Gun/Red Flag, by war's end the US/Gook ratio was completely one sided. Also,I'm betting if one divides the ratio of missiles fired v kills between the two services the numbers will differ.
Excellent points.
I think it's interesting that the USN shot down 46 MiG's with the AIM-9, vs 34 for the AF (or 48/38, depending on which source you use), but the Air Force shot down far more MiGs with the Sparrow (50) than did the Navy (8).
A lot of training shortfalls were brought to the forefront when the F-4 started going up against the early Migs in 'Nam.
Very little training was being devoted to ACM, "knife fighting", if you will. It was focused more on BVR (beyond visual range) missile engagements. The biggest problem with that was the ROE (rules of engagement) generally required a VID (visual identification) before you could shoot, therefore defeating the purpose of the Sparrow.
There was also a lot of ignorance and/or misunderstanding about missile envelopes and employment. The F-4 radar could only "track" out to 40 degrees off the nose and in order to keep the CW guidance illuminator on the target, the radar had to stay locked on all the way to impact. If you fired a Sparrow and let the bogey get more than 40 degrees off, the radar broke track and the missile would go stupid. That would also happen if YOU performed any maneuver that moved the bogey more than 40 degrees off. (This happened a LOT) It was simple ignorance of how the radar and the missile worked together.
For the early Navy Sparrows, they took a beating flying off of and landing on the boat. They weren't solid state so were more susceptible to internal failures. If I remember correctly the Air Force had better results with the AIM 7 because they got a little more TLC flying off the beach. There were also times when they got clearance to fire BVR because a target had been declared "hostile" and they were able to shoot them in the face before the merge. Later in the war, the Air Force also had a system to ID Migs at range and use the Sparrow for what it was designed.
There were similar problems with lack of understanding of firing envelopes for the Sidewinder, especially with the earliest versions that were deployed to SE Asia. With a small seeker head field of view and the little wings of the early "Winders", they weren't that maneuverable so they were pretty easy to defeat if the bad guy saw it coming.
When we got hold of some of the Migs (17's and 21's) exploited them, learned their weaknesses, and strong points, etc. both the Air Force and the Navy came up with their fighter weapons schools, i.e., Top Gun. The basic idea was that by teaching a couple of guys from each squadron the most effective tactics and effective use of the weapons systems, those guys could then go back to their squadrons and teach the rest of the guys.
It worked like a champ and the American kill ratio took off. It was just a matter of training to the proper threat and the learning the capabilities, strong points, weak points and your own weapons systems as well as that of your enemy.
During one of the early Red Flag exercises in the mid '70s the aggressor squadron was suppose go up in their F-5s and fly a route blind so that the Aces could jump them and shoot em down. Well the aggressor pilots weren't about to play someone's b!tch. They came up with a plan, had avionics maintenance install car radar detectors on the F-5's glare shields. They took off on their given flight plan, turned on the radar detectors and waited. Their radar detectors alarms went off indicating they were being painted by the hunters, they waited until the time was right and the hunters became the hunted! The F-5s won the dogfights that day.
I read a book written about John Boyd. He was an Air Force officer to developed a mathematical method to evaluate a fighter airplane. He found that the F-111 and Phantom were terrible fighters. His methodology was used to design the F-15 and F-16 which were the best fighters in the world during their day.
While not a jet fighter, my Dad preferred the stick of the Bronco. Low and slow, marking targets for the fast movers.
Shot down and MIA almost 45 years ago, but recovered safe and mostly sound. I still love sitting down and listening to his stories while all starry-eyed.
He did not care for 105's. Too many of his friends died in those "Thuds".
[quote=Marty_B]The above fighter is the F-14. My favorite has to be the F-15 Eagle. Although not a fighter, the A-10 Warthog is an awesome airplane.
Yes it is a fighter it takes on tanks and the like. I was back seat on the CF-100 MK-4 and it had 56 2.75 FF rockets and 8-50Cal. does that make it a fighter?? Also a few rides in the F-4. Cheers NC
I worked the flight deck at night in 1968. We tanked and did ECM with our old EA3B's. In my day, it was the F4. There is nothing like the violence and beauty of flight op's at night. I salute all the brave young men that served with me and especially the men with the balls and brains to fly those aircraft. I'd do it again in a minute.
If the question is "best looking," my vote goes for the F-11F Grumman Tiger in Blue Angels livery...
My father was in Naval Aviation during the brief period when the F-11F was being used. He recalls it being something of an underpowered dud, not altogether willing to get airborne on a hot day on the South China Sea.
The Blue Angels were still flying them when I was old enough to remember them doing so.
I've got a soft spot for "Heinemann's Hot Rod," too but they don't count in this discussion. The ol' "Scooter" to me is the second best looking military jet flown the U.S. forces.
Kind of off the subject, but I knew a fellow who had seat time in both the F-8 Crusader, which I think is a rather unstylish thing to look at, and the F-4. He described the F-8 as a "sports car with wings" and favored it over the F-4. The F-4 Phantom was an intimidating looking bird, for sure.
If I could have stick time in any U.S. military aircraft, the one I'd want the stick time in is the A-4 Skyhawk.
"If I could have stick time in any U.S. military aircraft, the one I'd want the stick time in is the A-4 Skyhawk."
And what a sensitive stick it is, in both roll and pitch. The max roll rate was 720 degrees per second. That is right, one complete aileron roll in half a second. You could make your own head spin.
Some good info here on the Snake kills. : Winderkills
Total numbers are really not that a valid measure of effectiveness when you consider how many were fired outside parameters. The USN had a better overall kill ratio over the AF for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the Navy learned to fight earlier (Top Gun), the AF was relegated to flying those almost suicidal "Route Packs", AIM-7s were radar beam riders, tough to keep locked if you were jumped (and really designed for the interceptor role to hit slower, less agile bombers) and also the AF had initially ONE dedicated squadron as a "Dogfighter" which was the 555th and they were good, REAL GOOD. Finally when real warriors like Robin Olds were given a freer rain, combined with training at Top Gun/Red Flag, by war's end the US/Gook ratio was completely one sided. Also,I'm betting if one divides the ratio of missiles fired v kills between the two services the numbers will differ.
Excellent points.
I think it's interesting that the USN shot down 46 MiG's with the AIM-9, vs 34 for the AF (or 48/38, depending on which source you use), but the Air Force shot down far more MiGs with the Sparrow (50) than did the Navy (8).
navl8ar's post answered your question pretty well I think. I will also add the fact we had lost the art of "knifefigthing" as nvlair so adroitly put it in favor of a pure interceptor mission where the Sparrow was at it's optimum. That and the fact the Navy adopted a return to the "knife" a bit quicker than the AF.
"If I could have stick time in any U.S. military aircraft, the one I'd want the stick time in is the A-4 Skyhawk."
And what a sensitive stick it is, in both roll and pitch. The max roll rate was 720 degrees per second. That is right, one complete aileron roll in half a second. You could make your own head spin.
As NFO's in VT-86 our last segment of training was in the TA-4. A couple airways flights then about 15 flights in the SEABREEZE MOA doing some tactical maneuvering, Tac Turns, In place, cross turns etc. in formation then you had enough gas for 2-3 Basic Fighter Maneuver (ACM Light) engagements. These flights were graded but were meant to move you from that student mentality to being part of a crew. We called all the maneuvers from the backseat (like if you saw you were overshooting call a hi-yo yo) and even knowing what was going on I still got my head bounced off the canopy a few times. I'm not a big guy and both of my shoulder nearly touched the canopy rail in the A-4.
Great thread gents hope it continues lots of excellent info with personal accounts.
The F-4 was base line badazz in my timeline being flown by the AF,Navy and Marines.Actual combat losses were quite lopsided overall as the AF numbers [382] vs Navy [75] and Marines [72] only prove the AF Phantom role was more in fighter/bomber mode than interceptor. Multi role was an understatement but its overall strength IMO was ground attack via retarded iron bombs,2.75's,napalm and 20mm gun pods.
F-4 mission requirements certainly varied from base to base in those days but I never saw one aircraft rigged solely for air/air interceptor mode.
IMO what makes or breaks a fighter is the pilots. If a pilot knows how to get the best from his bird and refuses to fight his opponents fight he can prevail. The truth of the F-4 and F-14 is they were intended to be used for fleet defense and intercept Russian bombers before they could fire missiles on the fleet. It was proven they could do more and well. Congress combined the F-4 design for USN/USMC & USAF use. The same airframe intended for different missions. Just because you can remove the trunk lid from a Caddy doesn't make it a pickup truck. The F-111 was intended to replace he F-150 as a tactical nuclear/interdiction fighter bomber hence the bomb bay. It was a very fast A-6. IMO the F-8 upgraded with a J-75 engine and some other improvements would have been one of the most Sierra Hotel fighters of all time.
The only correction to your post Dave is the F-14, although fully capable in the long range interceptor role for long range fleet defense against bombers with the Phoenix, it was at it's core, a true in-close fighter. Extremely maneuverable and armed with a gun that was even canted upwards in order to facilitate tracking in tight turns. The F-4 was an interceptor all the way and the LAST thing you wanted is to let yourself get caught in a low-speed, low altitude turning fight.
"If I could have stick time in any U.S. military aircraft, the one I'd want the stick time in is the A-4 Skyhawk."
And what a sensitive stick it is, in both roll and pitch. The max roll rate was 720 degrees per second. That is right, one complete aileron roll in half a second. You could make your own head spin.
And that right there is why I'd love to strap a Scooter on and take it for a ride!!
"If I could have stick time in any U.S. military aircraft, the one I'd want the stick time in is the A-4 Skyhawk."
And what a sensitive stick it is, in both roll and pitch. The max roll rate was 720 degrees per second. That is right, one complete aileron roll in half a second. You could make your own head spin.
I'm not a big guy and both of my shoulder nearly touched the canopy rail in the A-4.
Two highlights of my life were getting to meet Ed Heinemann, which was like being in the presence of a god to me, and getting to plant my butt in the seat of an A-4 on display in a museum. I don't know why I should have been, but I was amazed at how cramped the cockpit was. "Cramped" may be the wrong word, because that implies "uncomfortable." Better to say that, in sitting in one, the A-4 struck me more as a machine you strap on and wear, rather than something you 'go for a ride in'.
The only correction to your post Dave is the F-14, although fully capable in the long range interceptor role for long range fleet defense against bombers with the Phoenix, it was at it's core, a true in-close fighter. Extremely maneuverable and armed with a gun that was even canted upwards in order to facilitate tracking in tight turns. The F-4 was an interceptor all the way and the LAST thing you wanted is to let yourself get caught in a low-speed, low altitude turning fight.
I've always thought of the F-14 as described but received some outstanding CAS in Anbar Province in 05 from one. My favorite has always been the F-4 though. I wouldn't turn down support from either!
The only correction to your post Dave is the F-14, although fully capable in the long range interceptor role for long range fleet defense against bombers with the Phoenix, it was at it's core, a true in-close fighter. Extremely maneuverable and armed with a gun that was even canted upwards in order to facilitate tracking in tight turns. The F-4 was an interceptor all the way and the LAST thing you wanted is to let yourself get caught in a low-speed, low altitude turning fight.
I've always thought of the F-14 as described but received some outstanding CAS in Anbar Province in 05 from one. My favorite has always been the F-4 though. I wouldn't turn down support from either!
Late in it's life with the LANTIRN pod and new bombing software and smart munitions the Tomcat turned into a really excellent bomber.
When I was at my first airwing Fallon in 1990 our two Tomcat squadrons tried to drop some inert Mk-82's. (500 lb'ers) The bracketed hwy 50 a LONG ways off the range. That idea was shelved for a decade until the new software.
Intersting tid-bit on the "Bombcats" and the Tomcat Community. When they first came out, they wanted nothing to do with air-to-ground stuff. Not cool enough for fighters. Then as the years progressed and multi-mission became the mantra for survival, THEN they got in the game.
Excellent bomber as Pugs alluded to, lots of range and loiter time compared to the short-legged Hornets (which incidentally became the ONLY Navy jet to FLUNK OP-EVAL yet we bought it anyway) the decision had been made to cease production an that was really too bad. In my opinion we should have built the Tomcat 2000 and the A-6F and forget that A-12 POS and when they A-12 program blew up, we had only one jet in production, the Hornet, so we're stuck with what amounts to an F-14D with less capability and to make matter WORSE, we continue to chase that OTHER fiasco, the F-35....
Not a pound for air-to-ground! I just want that on record to indicate my allegiance to my fighter roots! In the end, the ol' Tom made a decent bomber. It could only carry four bombs though, could be big ones or little ones, but only four. Certainly no Strike Eagle. But we did put a lot of emphasis on execution of the tougher missions such as FAC(A), CAS and CSAR and that paid off in spades in places like Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
If your going to talk about Maritime Strike aircraft, I would offer the old Blackburn Buccaneers...Falling roughly between the Skyhawk and A6 in capability, she was by all accounts a very stable low level bombing platform..
The video below shows show nice low level flying through some mountains while the second is a rather dated and somewhat cheezy training film from the late 78's showing a simulated strike mission..
Well that Tomcat sure impressed me with some pinpoint bombing on targets in a city none the less. Also was surprised to see some A-6 's being flown out of Al Asad.
The F-14 sure showed itself to be a very versatile aircraft, especially later on in life.
The one thing that always fascinated me with the Turkey was the full-on six AIM-54 Phoenix load-out. Remember reading through an ancient issue of "The 'Hook" about guys who had done a cat/trap with that payload. Must have been a chore.
If your going to talk about Maritime Strike aircraft, I would offer the old Blackburn Buccaneers...Falling roughly between the Skyhawk and A6 in capability, she was by all accounts a very stable low level bombing platform.
The Buccs were a great aircraft. I flew my deepest strike during Desert Storm (aka Operation Granby) escorting Buccs and Tornados to bomb an airfield. Later I was stationed in Turkey with one of the guys I escorted. Many pints were exchanged I assure you.
Very cool jet for sure, Pete. If I recall, the Buccaneer had a rotary bomb bay as well. Loved the video. Even in my slow Viking, we could routinely kick Aegis Cruiser ass. Just keep below the radar horizon, pick them up outside missile range, drop to the deck, pop up at 60NM or so for target refinement then Harpoon release~50NM, way before they got any radar paint on us. Anyway, great video of a VERY COOL jet!.
There's an ANG base adjacent to the Fresno, CA airport. One Sunday I was getting home from a trip, and F16's were doing touch & goes. As I walked to my parked truck, each aircraft takeoff was setting off at least 20 car alarms in the lot
I suspect a bunch of people were needing jump starts, the next few days, and/or thinking they had bad batteries.
Very cool jet for sure, Pete. If I recall, the Buccaneer had a rotary bomb bay as well. Loved the video. Even in my slow Viking, we could routinely kick Aegis Cruiser ass. Just keep below the radar horizon, pick them up outside missile range, drop to the deck, pop up at 60NM or so for target refinement then Harpoon release~50NM, way before they got any radar paint on us. Anyway, great video of a VERY COOL jet!.
I think they did have the rotary bomb bays..
That form of attack works well as the RN found out to their cost during the Falklands War..We were just plain lucky that the Junta made their move before their air force had a decent inventory of Exocets or the planes to equipped to fire them.
Was reading an interesting account the other day speculating whether the Chileans allowed Nimrods and/or Canberra PR9's to operate from Chilean airfields. We gave them a couple PR9's at the end of the war for buttons so I tend to think we were saying "Thank You" for something tangible.
I know we did supply them with a powerful ground based radar and trained them how to operate it, and in return, they provided virtually real time info on raids departing from the Argentina's southern airfields...maybe in a few more years, the rest of the story will come out...
Pete, that form of attack is EASILY countered with a conventional Aircraft Carrier and AIRBORNE early Warning like the E-2C Hawkeye. Then you can extend coverage out to almost 1000 miles and those Buccaneers would not have gotten close. During the Falklands (as you probably know) you guys had SAS/SBS dudes on the beach transmitting Indications and Warnings.
I suspect a bunch of people were needing jump starts, the next few days, and/or thinking they had bad batteries.
Jeez, THAT's what it was! I left my truck in longterm parking a month ago at KSJT and when I came back after only 4 days away the battery was dead. Yesterday two pairs of F15's from Goodfellow flew low over my house a couple times. They were apparently doing T&G's on Rwy 18 (about 2 miles from my house, and I'm well east of the usual glidepath, but when you're flying an Eagle, I guess your glidepath is what you want it to be!!) and the neighbor's car alarm went off... turns out they've been doing training every Sunday for the past 6 weeks or so.
Chuck Yeager proved that to another jock one day.. Both took off and Yeager waxed him good.. They switched planes and took off again, only to have Yeager wax him again..
Growing up around Air Force bases wasn't a bad child hood, that's for sure...
when I was in about the 2nd grade we lived on a base that was phasing out B 36s.... at that age, watching one take off, almost resembled watching a seagull take off on a pier...
Thanks for those, Flem. Thuds and Phantoms....I still have it for the Darts. My last look (and feel) at the Phantom was up at Anchorage in the early 1980s, I was working on the railroad and had a house on the point north of the railroad above the docks. Great, epic views of Mount Spurr, McKinley and the Inlet. One evening, there was some kind of cycle blitz at the base. The sky was literally filled with Phantoms roaring off into the sunset, with the burners glowing along with the sun. Being a military kid and not realizing the passage of time, I enjoyed it, took eye movies, but didn't bother getting out the Nikon and the big glass. The best pass was a four-ship, the very last. I presume they took off as pairs and then joined up for a fly-by, but it was a perfect finger four with zero separation, with all eight burning. As they began their turn to the north, they crossed the sun line right on the shoulder of Mount Spurr. What a goodbye.
Pete, that form of attack is EASILY countered with a conventional Aircraft Carrier and AIRBORNE early Warning like the E-2C Hawkeye. Then you can extend coverage out to almost 1000 miles and those Buccaneers would not have gotten close.
Quite correct, however the Task Force did not have an organic AEW capability. At some point a number of Sea Kings were modified for that role, but I don't think they came into service until after the war.
We did have Nimrod MR2, but given the distances from Ascension Islands, and the area the Task Force was spread over, the coverage was patchy..That was one of the reasons why we approached the Chileans about basing them somewhere a lot closer..
Regardless the the MR2 was not a dedicated AEW platform, so I am doubtful as to how effective they would have been in that role.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
During the Falklands (as you probably know) you guys had SAS/SBS dudes on the beach transmitting Indications and Warnings.
Yeah, at the time some of that became public when that Sea King had to ditch on a beach in Chile, and since then there's been lots of other rumours/speculation about exact nature of their missions.
Doc originally all Phantoms were built for the Squid AF.The T-hook was of course a key air frame component for carrier ops and was still in play as more F-4's went to land based USAF squadrons in Thailand and S. Vietnam.It was a great emergency tool for brake or parachute issues,hung ordinance, hydraulic and possible gear malfunctions..
Out of frame was a capture barrier which could also be deployed should the wire attempt fail. Wasn't an everyday occurrence of course but was used more than one would think as the AF variants were weak in the knees compared to their Navy cousins.
In theory an AF bird could land on a carrier..but certainly not practical for a host of reasons!
Pardon my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that any but Navy jets used tailhooks... care to comment further?
Even today the F-15 and 16 have hooks suitable for field arrestment but they are not designed to stand up to the short (or repeated) payout of a carrier landing. They're up under panels so you can't see them normally.
When you have controllability issues, or the potential of, a field arrestment is the norm even for the Navy. If we lost our flight hydraulic system we had no nose wheel steering (or speed brakes or anti-skid or flapper pop-up) so a trap was the norm.
Thats just ooozing with testosterone and sex appeal.
The hovering fire wagon was always a welcome sight especially when declaring an emergency..While providing air support for an LZ we had our #2 shot up by ground fire and limped home...these guys were on us practically when the rubber hit the road which is a great feeling as fire was always bad cinema.
Doc originally all Phantoms were built for the Squid AF.The T-hook was of course a key air frame component for carrier ops and was still in play as more F-4's went to land based USAF squadrons in Thailand and S. Vietnam.It was a great emergency tool for brake or parachute issues,hung ordinance, hydraulic and possible gear malfunctions..
Out of frame was a capture barrier which could also be employed should the wire attempt fail. Wasn't an everyday occurrence of course but employed more than one would think as the AF variants were weak in the knees compared to their Navy cousins.
In theory an AF bird could land on a carrier..but certainly not practical for a host of reasons!
I'm sure someone. will correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the Air Force Phantoms had the beefed up landing gear of our Navy variants. The hook is the same and it saved my, and my RIO's butts, and a jet when a nose tire blew up in the wheel well, jamming the controls. Had to land that sucker at 190 kts and take the mid-field (of three) arresting gear at MCAS Iwakuni. Our Marine buddies did a few repairs in the wheel well and we "stiff legged" it back to Atsugi the next day.
A guy in my squadron on the USS Midway had a REALLY HARD landing on a pitching deck (he was coming down as the deck was going up) and essentially broke the right wing all the way around about four feet from the fuselage. The only thing holding the wing on was the wing tank and fuel/hydraulic lines in the wing. As far as the landing gear and tires go, they were intact. Fortunately, they trapped. If they had "boltered" they would have died.
The hook points are replaceable and our troubleshooters got the one from my 100th night landing on "Ma Midway" and gave it to me. The hook point alone probably weighs 15 lbs!
Doc originally all Phantoms were built for the Squid AF.The T-hook was of course a key air frame component for carrier ops and was still in play as more F-4's went to land based USAF squadrons in Thailand and S. Vietnam.It was a great emergency tool for brake or parachute issues,hung ordinance, hydraulic and possible gear malfunctions..
Out of frame was a capture barrier which could also be employed should the wire attempt fail. Wasn't an everyday occurrence of course but employed more than one would think as the AF variants were weak in the knees compared to their Navy cousins.
In theory an AF bird could land on a carrier..but certainly not practical for a host of reasons!
I'm sure someone. will correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the Air Force Phantoms had the beefed up landing gear of our Navy variants. The hook is the same and it saved my, and my RIO's butts, and a jet when a nose tire blew up in the wheel well, jamming the controls. Had to land that sucker at 190 kts and take the mid-field (of three) arresting gear at MCAS Iwakuni. Our Marine buddies did a few repairs in the wheel well and we "stiff legged" it back to Atsugi the next day.
A guy in my squadron on the USS Midway had a REALLY HARD landing on a pitching deck (he was coming down as the deck was going up) and essentially broke the right wing all the way around about four feet from the fuselage. The only thing holding the wing on was the wing tank and fuel/hydraulic lines in the wing. As far as the landing gear and tires go, they were intact. Fortunately, they trapped. If they had "boltered" they would have died.
The hook points are replaceable and our troubleshooters got the one from my 100th night landing on "Ma Midway" and gave it to me. The hook point alone probably weighs 15 lbs!
Rog on the gear.. I touched on that from the highlighted post above..
Navy landing gear is crazy strong. I for one am grateful for that. Took a really hard landing once where both main struts completely compressed, tires compressed (yes, even with the boat pressure of 375psi IIRC) and a couple inches was shaved off both ventral fins. My back hurt for a couple weeks. Last I saw the vsi was going up past ~1500FPM. Ouch... Jet flew the next day. Yet one of many days I appreciated Grumman engineers.
IMO what makes or breaks a fighter is the pilots. If a pilot knows how to get the best from his bird and refuses to fight his opponents fight he can prevail. The truth of the F-4 and F-14 is they were intended to be used for fleet defense and intercept Russian bombers before they could fire missiles on the fleet. It was proven they could do more and well. Congress combined the F-4 design for USN/USMC & USAF use. The same airframe intended for different missions. Just because you can remove the trunk lid from a Caddy doesn't make it a pickup truck. The F-111 was intended to replace he F-150 as a tactical nuclear/interdiction fighter bomber hence the bomb bay. It was a very fast A-6. IMO the F-8 upgraded with a J-75 engine and some other improvements would have been one of the most Sierra Hotel fighters of all time.
Regretably the Navy turned down that upgrade of the Crusader. Another "what if"...
Very cool jet for sure, Pete. If I recall, the Buccaneer had a rotary bomb bay as well. Loved the video. Even in my slow Viking, we could routinely kick Aegis Cruiser ass. Just keep below the radar horizon, pick them up outside missile range, drop to the deck, pop up at 60NM or so for target refinement then Harpoon release~50NM, way before they got any radar paint on us. Anyway, great video of a VERY COOL jet!.
I think they did have the rotary bomb bays..
That form of attack works well as the RN found out to their cost during the Falklands War..We were just plain lucky that the Junta made their move before their air force had a decent inventory of Exocets or the planes to equipped to fire them.
Was reading an interesting account the other day speculating whether the Chileans allowed Nimrods and/or Canberra PR9's to operate from Chilean airfields. We gave them a couple PR9's at the end of the war for buttons so I tend to think we were saying "Thank You" for something tangible.
I know we did supply them with a powerful ground based radar and trained them how to operate it, and in return, they provided virtually real time info on raids departing from the Argentina's southern airfields...maybe in a few more years, the rest of the story will come out...
Argentina and Chile consider each other to be military adversaries. I'm sure Chile, for consideration, was happy to assist in the Brits humiliating Argentina over the Falklands/Malvinas
Chuck Yeager proved that to another jock one day.. Both took off and Yeager waxed him good.. They switched planes and took off again, only to have Yeager wax him again..
I cannot identify it but I saw it in use at CAFB Mississippi late 60s-early70s. Only safe way to approach it on ground was head on. I'm sure Rocky Raab can tell you about them.
Pardon my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that any but Navy jets used tailhooks... care to comment further?
The century series fighters had tail hooks installed as a mod. Many were just like a leaf spring with the tail hook shoe help up by a latch that was solenoid controlled. The F-111s had a hydraulic operated tail hook that would extend by pilot control but maintenance had to raise it back up. The F-4s and A-7s were Navy designs and had the same tail hooks in all branches. The F-4 tail hooks were called "crew chief killers" because of their location and height on the plane. One "urban myth" about the F-105 was a pilot took the barrier in Thailand and it ripped the aft section of the plane off. Keep in mind many single engine planes back then had the aft section removed to replace the engine.
growing up around AFBases, I saw a lot of these used, particularly when the fire equipment came out when a plane went down upon landing or had a rough landing/belly landing..
I think the first Model Aircraft I ever built was a model of one of these.. I think Lindberg made them in the 60s...I was about 10 or so...
![[Linked Image]](http://www.cirrusimage.com/air/f-104_starfighter.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6045/6335002843_de101551d5.jpg)
). The F-100 is very cool, but I have to go with the MiG Master, aka the F-8.
![[Linked Image]](http://media.photobucket.com/user/sittingduck23/media/yap1.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8IaxVnSi--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/j3ban44vxdfebjsmwipu.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c101/gniswend/F-22_zpsw8gzdk2r.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://s119.photobucket.com/user/gvblack/media/dad_german_jet_zps2mrycr7f.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s119.photobucket.com/user/gvblack/media/Adolf%20Galland%20amp%20Albert%20Speer%20Erhard%20Milch_zpsh4vj3ayi.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s119.photobucket.com/user/gvblack/media/Messerschmitt_Me_262A_at_the_National_Museum_of_the_USAF_zpseygw6znx.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Javelin-5.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/De_Havilland_%28later_Hawker_Siddeley%29_Sea_Vixen.jpg/800px-De_Havilland_%28later_Hawker_Siddeley%29_Sea_Vixen.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Lightning.inflight.arp.750pix.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://q-zon-fighterplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/English-Electric-Lightning-F3.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1200.photobucket.com/user/DocDarkside/media/1955%20300SL_zpsjzwnnxxt.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/North_American_F86-01.JPG)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.samolotypolskie.pl/uploads/Products/product_1656/lockheed-f-104-starfighter_src_2.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://img.rt.com/files/news/1e/17/10/00/a_f_22_raptor_fighter_jet.si.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.wallpapersdesign.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Aircraft-Military-Soviet-Su-27-Flanker-Fighter-Jet.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1078.photobucket.com/user/tracks3/media/F-8E_VMF-212_CVA-34_1965_cropped_zpszxea3obx.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/RAAF_F111.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://angelcraftcrownglobalsecurityservices.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/f-111-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2919_zpsq80vy6at.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2920_zpszhelwotd.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2928_zps7eodvg84.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2941_zpsnu2klkam.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1200.photobucket.com/user/DocDarkside/media/stupid_plane_model_zpsv7l8b2qb.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1200.photobucket.com/user/DocDarkside/media/Calvin%20nukes%20his%20school_zpsc2hk5qof.gif.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6238/6336899363_fe4e2d846b.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6236/6335767002_e4f73087ae.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6229/6335767004_e69d226e48.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2922_zpsrx4azguw.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.shaw.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2013/02/130207-F-PY888-001.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/czech-_af_gripen-saab_ab_thru_flickr.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/gaepps/Aviation/escort.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/gaepps/Aviation/KC-135R.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTE4NFg5MDE=/$T2eC16Z,!ygE9s7HJ+DgBQUewu4Crg~~60_35.JPG)
![[Linked Image]](http://hsfeatures.com/images/hunterme_10.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/IRIAF-F-4.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/gaepps/Aviation/f14_16_zps79h757dy.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s9.photobucket.com/user/mharder/media/Arrow2.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s50.photobucket.com/user/jennifer9024/media/OV-10_Bronco_firing_White_phosphorus_zpsuhkpdua9.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s50.photobucket.com/user/jennifer9024/media/OV10-1_zpsgtlx1c1b.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s50.photobucket.com/user/jennifer9024/media/Back-7_zpsmmnz9r16.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s50.photobucket.com/user/jennifer9024/media/Hit-3_zps9yk4q05s.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s50.photobucket.com/user/jennifer9024/media/nkp-1_zpspi6buxpr.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2990_zpsex8jzsod.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2987_zps4o3ey9k7.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2991_zpszegzfmy6.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2994_zps0clvnntz.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2996_zpsw1bkpcsa.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2992_zps2bsnrps3.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_2983_zpsa53o2quz.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/IMG_3006_zpsok7vl5pj.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz14/Arch48/IMG_3006_zpsok7vl5pj.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://smg.photobucket.com/user/bea175/media/Uss-Enterprise_zpsxmef6dgw.jpg.html)