Thursday, March 14, 2013

Heavy III.

This is coolbert:


Further more from the comment to the blog by Steiner:

"the heavy fighter concept has prevailed in post-war fighter design, except of course with twin jet engines. Since the early sixties, America’s front-line air superiority fighters (F4, F15 and now F22) have all been twin-engine ships with multirole/multiweapon capability and the size and power to carry the commensurate radar, hardpoints and avionics."

F4 & F14.

Those famous warplanes Phantom F-4 and Tomcat F-14, heavy fighters originally as developed for use by the US Navy but NOT envisioned by the military planners as "dogfighters" as that term understood with the context of aerial combat.

F-4 and F-14 more correctly seen as warplanes the mission of which was to protect the aircraft carriers of the US Navy from Soviet bomber and cruise missile attack. Warplanes launched and flying Combat Air Patrol [CAP] orbiting and able to engage enemy attackers with missile fire at long range.

F-4 and F-14 heavy fighters possessing multi-engines, multi-crew, equipped with heavy weaponry [missiles] guided to the target with advanced avionics and having a long range and endurance capability. Stay aloft for a long period if necessary ON GUARD!

Enemy approaching aircraft or cruise missiles acquired at a distance and destroyed without the aircrew ever making visual contact.

That F-4 as originally leaving the factory only able to fire missiles, sans cannon or guns of any sort!

F-4 during the Vietnam War as fielded [taken to the air] by the USAF also having added an attack capability, more and more ordnance added constantly, that 20 mm Vulcan cannon allowing for "dogfighting" with MiG-21 for instance in the venerable tradition of air-to-air combat.

F-4 a heavy fighter generally seen as ponderous as compared to the MiG-21, not as agile or maneuverable in a dogfight as the MiG, but this not always the case. From conversation with an acknowledged aviation authority:

"The Mig 21 was better than the F4 in turning radius at higher altitudes, the F4 was very good below 5,000'"  [1600 meters.]

Furthermore, in the skies over North Vietnam American aviatiors also encountereing a mix of MiG-21 AND MiG-17 that latter superior at LOWER altitudes. American pilots seeking aerial dogfight combat at lower altitude having a reception of MiG-17 awaiting them!!

"the Mig 17's much superior performance at the lower altitude made for an interesting tactical mix for the N. Viets . . . [Ameican pilots descending to 5,000 feet finding] Mig 17s already there, circling and waiting to pounce as soon as F4s showed up at those lower elevations.  It was a fine tactic and one which indicated how much they or someone thought these things out."

That MiG-17 also superior at the lower altitude, less than 5,000' and armed with cannon of 23 mm and 37 mm and a gun ranging radar but ONLY a very limited ammount of ammo with a slow rate of fire:

"the rate of fire really makes a difference with planes actually flying between the bullets in the stream."

American pilots flyingin Korea described the smaller round [23 mm] as having the appearance of a ping pong ball, the larger round [37 mm] having rthe apearance of a tennis ball!

It seems that maneuverability and agility are not necessarily paramount? When the heavy [F-4] in combat with the light [MiG-17] that ability of the pilot to maximize his strenghts and limit his weakness is more important?


No comments: