4 ms·
Well. The Vietnamese pilots were using Soviet tactics, mainly Ground Control vectors. Most Vietnamese pilots were rookies, but they did have some aces who wou
by redis_mlc 7y ago
Well.
The Vietnamese pilots were using Soviet tactics, mainly Ground Control vectors.
Most Vietnamese pilots were rookies, but they did have some aces who would dogfight, like Colonel Toon, who was shot down by Randy Cunningham:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham
But largely the tactics were to surprise the Americans with first MiG-17's, then have a MiG-21 at high speed do an ambush pass from the clouds through lower-flying Americans.
The Vietnamese could have done a lot more damage had they known how worthless the US air-air missiles were at the time. There were all kinds of problems with taking too long to arm (around 4 seconds) and vibration from takeoffs and landings inerting the missiles. And that no gun thing.
Additionally, US pilots were expected to have up to a dozen radio channels active, causing pilot workload problems until they turned off like 11 of them.
- neurobashing 7y agoHe told me he didn’t have a lot of confidence in the Sparrow. They eventually got some aircraft with guns but never used them; despite Top Gun school something like 90% Of his flights were ground attack missions.
- kitteh 7y agoHighly recommend folks who are into aircraft warfare pick up a book about how the AIM-9 Sidewinder was developed as a side project at China Lake by the Navy that had to be done under the radar due to politics. It's a great story about engineers driven by a real customer need fought bureaucracy, politics and some interesting technical challenges to build a missile and get it in the hands of pilots. They were up against a military contractor (Hughes) pushing the AIM-4 Falcon which had horrible numbers in the field. The Falcon required like 3 people and 4 racks worth of equipment to troubleshoot it while the Sidewinder required a screwdriver and a voltmeter. The Sparrow had its own challenges from what I've read. Specifically issues with the acquisition radar being able to track a fast moving target and the missiles ability to receive the reflected signal and apply the right amount of correction. Got to remember that the time when these missiles were being developed it was to target slow moving bombers - not tight turning bandits.
- sien 7y agoIs the book - Sidewinder - Creative Missile Development at China Lake? https://www.amazon.com/Sidewinder-Creative-Missile-Development-China/dp/1591149819 https://www.amazon.com/Sidewinder-Creative-Missile-Developme...
- kitteh 7y agoYep, that's the one. Thanks for finding and posting (wasn't able to do this where I was at).
- redis_mlc 7y agoI've only heard good things about the Sidewinder. The rest ... were a liability for years. US pilots also had the bizarre order to visually identify targets before shooting (which then meant waiting 4 seconds for the missile to arm before actually firing it.) Amongst other things, visibility in the tropics is often not 4 seconds worth, and the enemy can use clouds to get real close.
- razzmataz 7y agoNot to mention the AIM-4 was originally designed to shoot down Soviet bombers and not for dogfighting.
- chipsa 7y agoThe no gun thing is over hyped. The Navy never did install guns in their fighters in Vietnam, and still ended up reversing the kill ratio.
- razzmataz 7y agoThey started carrying gunpods at the time. Missiles of the era were inaccurate and finicky.
- chipsa 7y agoNo, the Navy didn't [0]. The Air Force did carry them. They Navy got better at avoiding the weaknesses. 0. https://combatace.com/forums/topic/91818-the-f-4-phantom-and-the-gun-part-1/ https://combatace.com/forums/topic/91818-the-f-4-phantom-and...
- jki275 7y agoIt was all about missiles. Once the missiles got fixed, the kill ratio turned around very quickly. And yes, had nothing to do with guns. Guns are and have been obsolete on fighter aircraft for decades.