Thread: The way it was, Miramar circa 60's F-8/F-4
View Single Post
Old 09-21-2009 | 03:41 PM
  #18  
Adlerdriver's Avatar
Adlerdriver
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,064
Likes: 37
From: 767 Captain
Default
Originally Posted by Maverick972
The F-8 was and still is the last of the gun fighters. No other aircraft hence has been designed to be pure air superiority fighter like the F-8. (Not even the F-15...I know I am going to catch hell for that comment) The F-4 was designed with the "New-Thinking" of the time that guns we obsolete and that missiles are all that would be needed hence no gun and the its bias toward being a multi role airframe like everything. They were wrong, that is why later models carried a gun pod mounted on the belly of the aircraft. The F-8 would turn tighter, pull more g's, had a truer sight picture and was designed to help the pilot get on the guns fast and stay in the fight. A real pilots aircraft that was also tough as nails. I would take the F-8 in the hands of a skilled pilot anytime. The F-4 was ugly, not very stable but had 2 powerful GE engines that made the aircraft what it is. If you look at the way the wings slant up and the horizontal stabilizerscant down, those were all an effort to make the ugly bird fly...The F-8 and F-4 are almost two different to com pair. As far as a true gunfighter the F-8 is it, not even the mighty F-14 (built for fleet defense and around the phoenix missile to shoot down Russian bears) can hold a candle to the F-8. Again the F-8 was designed to be a gun fighter pure and simple, not the multi role / multi purpose designs that have been the norm from Vietnam on. Just my opinion.

Maverick???
It’s nice and nostalgic to give the F-8 a catchy moniker like the “Last of the Gun Fighters” (I know that’s not your name – it’s been around a while). It sounds cool, but it’s simply the result of a Navy fighter requirement put out during a period when air-to-air missiles were hardly off the drawing board. The F-8 was a day-VFR, carrier based fighter with a 20mm cannon as its primary weapon. The F-8 requirement came out about a year before the Sidewinder program actually received “program” status and significant funding. The AIM-9B wasn’t operational for 4 more years, therefore, it’s not like they really had a choice on ordnance with which to equip this new “wonder fighter”. So, that makes it the last fighter aircraft designed “to be a pure air superiority fighter”? Sorry – but that is pure BS. Also, by the time the F-8 actually entered combat, its weapons load included AIM-9 sidewinders (more on that later).

The F-15A was clearly designed as an air superiority fighter – I don’t know what else you could call it. The USAF fighter requirement for the FX design designated an air superiority fighter with capabilities to exceed anything in the Soviet inventory – specifically the new MiG-25 (which intel reports had mistakenly given far more capabilities than it actually possessed). If the fact that the F-15’s primary weapon was no longer the gun somehow takes it out of the air superiority category for you, you clearly have some kind of misplaced bias against fighters equipped with missiles. It was never designed as a multi-role aircraft as you seem to claim. The fact that its design was easily modified to become a successful multi-role fighter-bomber (F-15E) is more a testament to the quality of that design than some kind of a con in a pro/con list.

To somehow hold up the F-8 as superior to late 1960’s designs like the F-14 and F-15 simply because those aircraft came off the drawing board equipped with missiles is pretty myopic. It would have been laughable to design an air superiority aircraft in the late 1960’s without a complete compliment of air to air weapons. It’s equally laughable to call a fighter that has to get inside 2500 feet in lead pursuit of its target in order to employ its PRIMARY weapon an air superiority fighter in the same comparison with the F-15.

I do agree with you concerning the initial decision to omit a gun from the F-4 design. That was a big mistake and had significant ramifications in training, combat and pilot training initially. One point – USAF models of the F-4E actually carried the gun internally – so not all F-4s mounted the cannon on an external pod. At least future designers learned from that mistake – not another fighter in the US inventory has failed to have a cannon incorporated into its design.

“A real pilot’s aircraft that was also tough as nails” – …………. And the F-4 wasn’t? We’re talking about one of the most prolific, successful and combat proven fighter-bomber (mostly bomber) aircraft in the history of fighter aviation. You’re entitled to your opinion of the F-8, but you kind of need to acknowledge history too.

“I would take the F-8 in the hands of a skilled pilot anytime” – you’d take an F-8 to do what? Dogfight 1v1 in the “ok corral” off Mirimar? – okay great. Drop 18 Mk-82s on the Haiphong rail yards while carrying a full complement of air-to-air ordnance as well? Good luck with that.

You like the F-8 as a day/VFR gun only fighter. Should we really be surprised that you don’t prefer an aircraft like the F-4 which was never designed to be employed in that same day/VFR visual fighter role? Each aircraft has pro and cons and you seem to want to focus on the pros of the F-8 without acknowledging any cons. If I had to choose a fighter to go into actual combat with, starting BVR with ROE that allowed BVR shots, the F-8 would not be tops on my list (never mind the single engine thing – but that’s my personal bias). I’d take an F-4, F-14, F-15 – basically any fighter capable of long range BVR missile shots so I could start off the engagement with some offensive options. Personally, hoping I survive the initial BVR to visual engagement so I can eventually get into a phone booth with my knife between my teeth isn’t the way I like to start off an engagement. Perhaps the unique circumstances driving Vietnam ROE and early missile capability/problems made the F-8 the best choice for air to air in that arena. That probably would not have been the case during Desert Storm thanks to much more reliable weapons, EID capabilities and BVR shot opportunities. You’ll note the complete lack of gun kills during that conflict, the presence of all three fighters you seem to want to scoff at (F-4, F-14 and F-15) and the notable absence of your beloved F-8 due to its retirement more than 15 years earlier.

You want to talk about the training/attitudes and capabilities of Navy F-8 pilots compared to their compatriots in other airframes who were less focused on visual dogfight skills, I think I’ll be in your camp. That’s more of a pilot skills discussion than an aircraft capability discussion. I think much of the credit you want to bestow on the F-8 itself is probably more a testament to the training and skills of its pilots. What would have happened if you could have swapped circa 1968 Navy F-8 and F-4 pilots, allowing them to go at it in each other’s aircraft? Would the F-4 pilot with his “no gun – missiles are everything” mentality suddenly prevail in the mighty F-8? Or, is it more likely that the victor would be the better trained pilot with a better working knowledge of energy management, BFM and minimizing his aircraft’s weaknesses while maximizing its strengths? That really hasn’t changed whether we’re discussing an F-8 v F-4 fight or fast forward 40 years and discuss yesterday’s mission involving F-16s, F-15s or F-18s.

Finally, it’s kind of funny that in spite of its “Gun Fighter” name, only 21% (4 of 19) of the kills credited to the F-8 were accomplished using the gun. The rest were the result of AIM-9 shots.

“Gunfighter” in the “ok corral” for bragging rights in the bar Friday night – not so much in actual combat, eh?
Reply
0