The Duke

I had not realized how poor our air combat kill ratio was vs. the North Vietnamese.

The F-15 was the direct result of the issues with air-to-air performance in Vietnam. I think the USAF Fighter Weapons School was as well. The F-15 is still undefeated in air-to-air combat, though it has been outclassed for some time by Raptor, Typhoon, and others.

The first lesson of combat aviation circa Vietnam - put a GD gun on the damn thing...

When you're inside visual range, bullets do not chase decoys...

I still have reservations about the effectiveness of guns on fighter aircraft. Against bombers/fighters in a surprise strafing run, I can see that, but in a dogfight, fighter on fighter I have grave reservations, especially at the speeds at which they are flying now. The Spitfire had 10-20 seconds total of ammunition, obviously fired in short bursts, but still nothing like the firing scenes in WWII movies! The "Hun in the sun" was very effective against new pilots, many of whom died in the first week of an operational squadron.
Peter.

If the war was fought correctly, Col Toon's and alot of the other Migs would be a smoking holes on the airfield. There would have been far fewer to deal with.

My dad flew the F-105. We had several pictures mounted on the fireplace mantle of his bridge + column destructions;no pics of downed migs but he was the 1st to admit that the mig was a superior aircraft.Once again it always comes down to the pilot.At least he came home alive after 5 tours.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
I still have reservations about the effectiveness of guns on fighter aircraft. Against bombers/fighters in a surprise strafing run, I can see that, but in a dogfight, fighter on fighter I have grave reservations, especially at the speeds at which they are flying now. The Spitfire had 10-20 seconds total of ammunition, obviously fired in short bursts, but still nothing like the firing scenes in WWII movies! The "Hun in the sun" was very effective against new pilots, many of whom died in the first week of an operational squadron.
Peter.

Many have had that reservation since Korea, but invariably as ECM steps up you wind up with two fighters in visual range left with a gun as the only working weapon. An F-4 in Vietnam did score a gun kill while supersonic. I think that is the only one.

Dogfight speeds have been relatively stable since the 1960s, maybe before. 300-500 KIAS are common speeds. Also, it’s not the actual speed but the relative speed, plane of motion, and ability to pull lead; all of which don’t necessarily happen quickly.

Randy, I remember attending an Armed Forces Day at Fort Lewis/McChord AFB as a kid in the 1960s when a couple of Thunderchiefs passed over us so low I felt the heat from their engines.

quote:

Originally posted by INTJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
I still have reservations about the effectiveness of guns on fighter aircraft. Against bombers/fighters in a surprise strafing run, I can see that, but in a dogfight, fighter on fighter I have grave reservations, especially at the speeds at which they are flying now. The Spitfire had 10-20 seconds total of ammunition, obviously fired in short bursts, but still nothing like the firing scenes in WWII movies! The "Hun in the sun" was very effective against new pilots, many of whom died in the first week of an operational squadron.
Peter.

Many have had that reservation since Korea, but invariably as ECM steps up you wind up with two fighters in visual range left with a gun as the only working weapon. An F-4 in Vietnam did score a gun kill while supersonic. I think that is the only one.

Dogfight speeds have been relatively stable since the 1960s, maybe before. 300-500 KIAS are common speeds. Also, it’s not the actual speed but the relative speed, plane of motion, and ability to pull lead; all of which don’t necessarily happen quickly.

And as we have seen with the F-35, doesn't happen at all. The thing bleeds energy and turns like a dull brick. F-35 drivers better hope they never find themselves with visual range combat.

Very interesting discussion. I believe that I read somewhere that the IDF still trains their pilots heavily on dogfighting skills. Perhaps because of the likely opposition, I don't know. We had a separate discussion some time ago where I proposed the possibility of a technology stalemate (due to ECM etc.) negating the effectiveness of the "fire and forget" missile technology, leaving us with heat seekers and guns! Perhaps the IDF thinks along the same lines?
Peter.

Did I not read that the 15 whipped the 35 pretty badly in head to head simulated combat.

People seem to like all the newest little shiny bells and whistles.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Very interesting discussion. I believe that I read somewhere that the IDF still trains their pilots heavily on dogfighting skills. Perhaps because of the likely opposition, I don't know. We had a separate discussion some time ago where I proposed the possibility of a technology stalemate (due to ECM etc.) negating the effectiveness of the "fire and forget" missile technology, leaving us with heat seekers and guns! Perhaps the IDF thinks along the same lines?
Peter.

The saying goes - the IAF cannot fly supersonic for more than 15 minutes in any direction and it will be over enemy territory so you better learn to dogfight. And they know how to freaking dogfight with the best.

They did things with the F-15 we never did.

quote:

Originally posted by TCLouis:
Did I not read that the 15 whipped the 35 pretty badly in head to head simulated combat.

People seem to like all the newest little shiny bells and whistles.

Within visual range, the F-35 cannot turn without bleeding lots of energy. It is a massive design flaw for a Fighter and it would take a total redesign of the wing to correct. So the lesson is, send the F-35's in for stealth bombing/attack and leave the dogfights to the F-22's, F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's.

The "F" 35 earned its "F" about the same way that the "F" 117 did - on paper only...

It's sorta like an "A" but more probably like a "B-".

Bill,I have a framed pic of my dad in his F100 flying in formation over the Grand Canyon + signed by the wing commander.Also have a wall mounted frame w/ all his decorations/wings/ + every rank advancement. As an aside on this I remember a byline by Hemingway while he was still working as a correspondence for the Toronto Star. This was in 1921 + he passed a pawn shop that had all these medals for sale in the window.His story was titled."What cost valour?"

Randy, isn't there a guy out there who returns Purple Hearts or some such? It is sad.

As to the F-35, whatever its shortcomings it is a handsome ship. This one was on display at a recent open house at Holloman AFB.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
I had not realized how poor our air combat kill ratio was vs. the North Vietnamese.

Well, you got your collective asses handed back to you on a rice plate, by rice farmers in pajamas!

Only thing the US Air Force succeeded in is poisoning the country with Agent Orange!


A shame really, a war started on a lie, caused untold death and misery in both countries.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
I had not realized how poor our air combat kill ratio was vs. the North Vietnamese.

Well, you got your collective asses handed back to you on a rice plate, by rice farmers in pajamas!

Only thing the US Air Force succeeded in is poisoning the country with Agent Orange!


A shame really, a war started on a lie, caused untold death and misery in both countries.

Nope. We thoroughly defeated them militarily, then our politicians made all that in vain......

So tired of the uninformed yapping clowns telling us how the US military lost in Vietnam. IF the US Military had been allowed to actually fight the VC, we would have turned the north into a flaming crater within 30 days with conventional warfare and .0003 seconds in unconventional warfare.

Vietnam was a politician's war. Little surprise it was such a clusterfuck.

Don't confuse the US military with Washington politicians.

quote:

Vietnam was a politician's war.

I thought that all wars were political. Name one war where the military had a free hand? Certainly not WW 2, or Korea.
Actually, fighting the VC by turning the North into a flaming crater is NOT fighting the VC. The US had NO idea how to fight the VC, just like it had no idea how to fight the war in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. etc.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!! The US was just not prepared to expend the men to fight a guerrilla war.

"The Department of Defense (DOD) reports that the United States spent about $168 billion (worth around $950 billion in 2011 dollars) in the entire war including $111 billion on military operations (1965 – 1972) and $28.5 billion on economic and military aid to Saigon regime (1953 – 1975). At that rate, the United States spent approximately $168,000 for an “enemy” killed."
"uninformed yapping clowns telling us how the US military lost in Vietnam"
Funny I didn't see any American victory parade in Hanoi. I did see video of Americans pushing helicopters off the decks of American warships just to get rid of them! Rewriting history again I see!
Peter.

Ummmm Trump, Mattis, ISIS. And Schwarzkopf during GW-I until the politicians interfered.

Funny how well the military works without the politicians getting involved.

Vietnam could have been won without the US politicians intervening.

There is but one way to win a war-

Make it so damnably unpleasant that someone wants to quit.

Whether that stoppage is the result of depletion of men, resources or political will.

We have made war so civilized it has become tolerable by many-

Make a war heinously intolerable and it stops-

Negotiate a peace , it may smolder forever

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
There is but one way to win a war-

Make it so damnably unpleasant that someone wants to quit.

Whether that stoppage is the result of depletion of men, resources or political will.

We have made war so civilized it has become tolerable by many-

Make a war heinously intolerable and it stops-

Negotiate a peace , it may smolder forever

I agree completely. A real war is ugly and not for the daily news on TV where it might hurt somebody's feelings. Bad as I hate to say it Sherman had the right idea in 1865.

Yup. the Germans did that in WW 1 and WW 2. Then the Russians showed them what war was REALLY like! You wanna make it unpleasant, then make sure you are on the winning side!
Peter.

In regards to WWII, the Soviets stopped Germany in no small part to the weather man. The Russian Winter (aka General Winter) accounted for many German deaths in addition to halting their advance.

At the end of the day, the Soviets were more willing to sacrifice men (and they lost many more than the Germans) than the German command was willing to lose. The Soviets lost more than 800,000 men with an additional 6 million Soviets wounded or captured.

If your enemy cares more about loss than you do, generally you will win in the end. Ho Chi Minh figured that out long before the US came to the aid of South Vietnam.

"If your enemy cares more about loss than you do, generally you will win in the end."
Hmm. Thought I said that!

"The US was just not prepared to expend the men to fight a guerrilla war."

Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
So tired of the uninformed yapping clowns telling us how the US military lost in Vietnam.

I am sure that the NV men flying the MIG 17's and MIG 21's were not rice farmers. No telling who was flying those aircraft Could have been Chinese or Russians or Vietnamese. The Vietnamese probably got their training in China or Russia.
And most of my friends and my cousin that were involved in the conflict don't refer to the enemy as VC. Mostly NVA. There were about 70,000 VC in South Vietnam at any one time and about 700,000 NVA.