2 ms·
The whole long-range dominance idea reminds me of early-Vietnam era F4 Phantoms - they were supposed to use the early models of Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles
by douche 11y ago
The whole long-range dominance idea reminds me of early-Vietnam era F4 Phantoms - they were supposed to use the early models of Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles exclusively for air-to-air combat. So when they actually got into combat, the armorers started strapping externally mounted gunpods on them, so that they could have a chance to dogfight with the mostly cannon-armed MiGs they encountered.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoOne of the VTOL opponents I know was my grandfather, who flew F4's. :) He loved them (unsurprisingly). He told me they did a lot of interesting stuff with them trying to squeeze out more ROI or effectiveness. The gunpods sound like an interesting example of that. Probably the best example of that idea in Vietnam, though, were the AC-130's with Vulcan's. I think the F4's might have been more cost effective, though, given how much munition the Spookies dropped vs number of kills.
- engi_nerd 11y agoWhat you are describing is historical truth. The Sparrow missiles were really bad. They had poor seekers, poor motors, and poor maneuverability. It took multiple Sparrows to even have a chance of killing a target. I believe their Pk was below 20% and was often as low as 9%. Early Sidewinders were more reliable, but had a narrow engagement envelope. And pilot training completely eliminated any work on how to conduct traditional dogfights. This was a recipe for lots of aircraft and aircrew losses. However, the aerospace industry and government have not stood still. Newer missiles are orders of magnitude more reliable and capable. High off boresight missiles mean that pilots can engage targets from a wide variety of angles. Seeker technology is amazingly better.