"USAF Promised the F-4 (and F-35) Would Never Dogfight" Topic

"The aerial dogfight was not supposed to happen. On May 20, 1967, eight U.S. Air Force F-4C fighters were patrolling over North Vietnam when they spotted as many as 15 enemy MiG-17 fighters a short distance away.

Fog and the MiGs' low altitude had prevented the F-4s from detecting the North Vietnamese jets from farther away.

Diving to attack, the twin-engine F-4s fired a staggering 24 Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, shooting down just four of the single-engine MiGs. The North Vietnamese jets reacted quickly, forming into a tight-turning "wagon wheel," with each pilot watching the tail of the man in front of him.

As the heavy, twin-engine F-4s tried to out-turn the nimble, single-engine MiGs, a North Vietnamese pilot peppered one of the American planes with cannon fire, igniting it and forcing the two crewmen to eject…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I just don't understand how the concept that we always enter a new war as if it was the last one – countries are, management and planning wise, always 'one war behind' is something that governments simply cannot seem to learn…

Oh well… Mark Twain once said that history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme…

John T

the trouble with getting away from the "fighting the last war" problem is correctly identifying what the next one will be.

Identifying it, building optimized hardware for it, training your personnel on said new hardware, using entirely untested training scenarios…..it's a HUGE level of risk to be "ahead of the power curve" for today's large, bureaucratic nation-state militaries.

Another issue is that technical capability and military reality or political necessity don't always intersect. The F4 *could* pick off targets from a stupendous distance, except the missions they were flying and the rules of engagement often meant they ended up nearly on top of their intended targets.

-Will

the rules of engagement often meant they ended up nearly on top of their intended targets

The F-4 was not designed to dogfight. It was intended as a supersonic interceptor capable of using beyond visible range (BVR) weaponry.

I believe the RoE may have stemmed from some early engagements by the F-4 with AIM-7 sparrows. Although 'bogeys' were identified on radar the lack of good IFF led to blue on blue engagements at BVR. As a consequence pilots were required to visually confirm the identification of the target before engaging, thus negating the long distance shooting range of the platform.

This left the aeroplane in close, and often at subsonic speeds; in many cases they were then too close to use even sidewinders and it is a testament to the skill of the pilots that they were able to perform so well against more nimble, maneuverable fighters.

Modern AWACS, IFF and long distance optical devices means that long range engagement is now far more likely to be sanctioned, as the enemy can be locate, identified and engaged beyond the range of the Mk1 eyeball.

After they put a gun on the F-4 and developed proper A2A tactics, the Phantom acquitted itself well against MiGs for the remainder of the Vietnam War.

For all its "deficiencies," I'm sure the F-35 will adapt as well. Just putting a silver lining in this story because it's around to stay so we might as well get used to it. How much it'll cost taxpayers and the cost-versus-benefits issue is another matter altogether, of course.

The F-4 was not designed to dogfight. It was intended as a supersonic interceptor capable of using beyond visible range (BVR) weaponry.

I believe the RoE may have stemmed from some early engagements by the F-4 with AIM-7 sparrows. Although 'bogeys' were identified on radar the lack of good IFF led to blue on blue engagements at BVR. As a consequence pilots were required to visually confirm the identification of the target before engaging, thus negating the long distance shooting range of the platform.

Yes, that was my point; the F4 wasn't intended to dogfight and under it's expected engagement profile should never have needed to dogfight. But the reality of the air war in Vietnam meant that it often DID find itself dog fighting.

-Will

But that was due to political decisions on RoE, due to the technology being unable to identify targets at range, rather than physical limitations.

These days they have functioning technology to positively identify the target at range, which should render the need for actual visible identification superfluous, this once again removing the need to be able to dogfight, but I do take your point that should the F-22 once again find itself close and dirty it simply doesn't have the tools to do the job

But that was due to political decisions on RoE, due to the technology being unable to identify targets at range, rather than physical limitations.

These days they have functioning technology to positively identify the target at range, which should render the need for actual visible identification superfluous, this once again removing the need to be able to dogfight, but I do take your point that should the F-22 once again find itself close and dirty it simply doesn't have the tools to do the job

Yea, I agree that the factors are different, and superior target identification means that the same situation shouldn't arise. But one could foresee other factors that lead to similar circumstances. If both sides have stealth, for example.

-Will

The F-35 is not intended to be the equivalent of the F4. The rough equivalent of the F-4 is the F-22 (or Typhoon on this side of the pond).

The F-35 fills the rough niche once occupied by the A-7 Corsair, A-6 Intruder or Harrier.

Yeah, I agree that the factors are different, and superior target identification means that the same situation shouldn't arise. But one could foresee other factors that lead to similar circumstances. If both sides have stealth, for example.

Or a bleep of a lot of jamming, or long-range anti-AWACS missiles (see the Czech MiG-23s), or passive radar-homing air-to-air missiles (Brazo), or …

But that was due to political decisions on RoE, due to the technology being unable to identify targets at range, rather than physical limitations.

I dislike the use of "political" in this context because it smacks of the "If it wasn't for those #$%$@! politicians, we would have won the war!" The decision was military to prevent demoralizing blue-on-blue kills.

More importantly, central Europe would have been a far more chaotic and complex environment. You'd either have to accept plenty of own-goals, or restrict BVR. Fortunately, the Soviets were busy introducing the MiG-23, which was even less able to dogfight than the F-4.

After they put a gun on the F-4 and developed proper A2A tactics, the Phantom acquitted itself well against MiGs for the remainder of the Vietnam War.

The Navy didn't even bother with a gun. With a much-improved Sidewinder and improved tactics, they did just fine.

This left the aeroplane in close, and often at subsonic speeds

Effectively always at subsonic speeds. If you're in close at supersonic speeds, you're not dogfighting and you don't have a problem because you can just extend away trivially.

it is a testament to the skill of the pilots that they were able to perform so well against more nimble, maneuverable fighters.

Which is a testament to how bad the tactics were in the most of the early Vietnam era. Any pilot who tries to turn with an aircraft with such vastly lower wing loading deserves to have his ejection seat triggered remotely (which is probably unnecessary, since the enemy with courteously disassemble the aircraft for him).
……………….

If you think that stealth works, you think that the dogfight is not dead.

The Vietnam experience of the F-4 led directly to the acqusition of the F-15, which could do everything in terms of an air superiority fighter. Now we are back on the trail leading to a "New" F-4 (F-35) without the ability to dogfight. Mark Twain was right.

Except that the F-35 isn't designed for the fleet interceptor role that the F-4 was supposed to fulfill. It can carry eight missiles, but it gives up stealth to do so …

Air Force to rely on Reserve to help stand up F-35 link

"The active duty has a pretty significant shortage in maintainers, and keeping the A-10 means that those maintainers will have to stay with those [units] and not be able to retrain"

I dislike the use of "political" in this context because it smacks of the "If it wasn't for those #$%$@! politicians, we would have won the war!" The decision was military to prevent demoralizing blue-on-blue kills.

My apologies, politics as opposed to Politics.

Effectively always at subsonic speeds

yes, that probably should have read 'low subsonic speeds', which suited the MiGs far better than the F-4.

The Navy didn't even bother with a gun.

An internal gun. They did fit gun pods.

No gun kills by Navy F-4s in Vietnam link link

Navy F-4s equipped for air-to-air combat seldom, if ever, carried gun pods. Centerline was typically used for fuel tanks.

"Now we are back on the trail leading to a "New" F-4 (F-35) without the ability to dogfight"

Comprehension not your strongpoint?

As I said earlier, the F-35 does not fill the same niche in the orbat as the F-4. That's what F-22s, F-18Es and Typhoons will continue to do.

One might as well complain that the F-35 doesn't do strategic recce as well as an SR-71 or do photo recce as well as a Canberra or hunt submarines as well as a Nimrod or transport troops as well as a C-17 or have a gun as big as a Destroyer or armour like a Challenger 2…

(Though I'm sure that those articles are being written)

As I said earlier, the F-35 does not fill the same niche in the orbat as the F-4. That's what F-22s, F-18Es and Typhoons will continue to do.

'Cept it does, because it'll be directly replacing the F-18.

I thought the F-18 was to continue in service until 2030 (and probably beyond) in the fleet air defence role until replaced by 'something else', while F-35 replaces F-18 in the strike role.

I doubt the F-35 will replace the 18E's, since the navy is only planning to purchase 260 airframes. Sounds like it will be used primarily in the strike role.

It's too bad we no longer designate planes like the A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-10.

F18E/Fs will continue in service until the 2030s for Fleet Air Defense.

The F35 is replacing the F18C/Ds, which are bomb trucks with some AA capability.

True, they've gone for the Yugo niche, but are paying 10x the price of a Rolls Royce, figuratively of course, since the RR is very inexpensive by comparison.

We've got to keep the F-18s, since the F-35 won't have its full combat capabilities until at least 2022, assuming all goes according to plan, which of course it never does.

The article is discussing capability, not price.

You're still being disingenuous re capability though – the F-35 is not intended to take over the air defence role. Comparisons with the F-4 are therefore ballhooks.