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.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
"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.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
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.
You better be afraid of a ghost!!
"Woody you were baptized in prop wash"..crossfireoops
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 Karma bus always has an empty seat when it comes around.- High Brass
There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
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.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
"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.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
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....
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
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.
![[Linked Image]](http://s50.photobucket.com/user/jennifer9024/media/Back-7_zpsmmnz9r16.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr288/Bwnci/welsh-flag-large-anim.gif)
