I think it would be ironic if stealth and a high ecm environment meant that aircraft couldn't detect each other until they were close enough to be in dog fighting range .

@memelephant

Жыл бұрын

Been thinking of this, would make the F-22’s manueverable again lol

@willymac5036

Жыл бұрын

That would be an example of true irony

@krizzle4087

Жыл бұрын

Doesn't really matter with newer missiles like AIM-9X Block 2+ and others in development with off boresight capabilities. Nearly impossible to escape.

@Rimasta1

Жыл бұрын

@@krizzle4087 Didn’t that Syrian Su-22 evade a 9X so the F-18 driver had to use an AMRAAM?

@jonathanpfeffer3716

Жыл бұрын

@@Rimasta1 One case, all weapons fail sometimes. You can find footage of the 9X hitting targets behind the launching platform on KZread, it has proven capability to do so.

One of my old commanders put it rather simply “We built an air superiority fighter so good we never have to use it besides in training and bean counters call it a waste”.

@kellywalker8407

Жыл бұрын

Not suprised. Not surprised at all. Friggin bean counters like McNamara.

@robertmaybeth3434

Жыл бұрын

The critics, most of them actual communists, have been saying the same thing about NATO since its inception. It took such a conventional war to actually happen, (in Ukraine), to realize that every penny ever spent on NATO has been well worth it! It is entirely conceivable that during the cold war era, the Soviets might have believed at some point they were capable of defeating the west Germans, or the British, or even the US Army in Europe - but even they had to realize they didn't stand a chance against all of them combined.

@ronaldvrooman9695

Жыл бұрын

​@@robertmaybeth3434 "The critics, most of them actual communists"......or ignorant, pro-authoritarian types like Donald Trump, who almost continually downgraded NATO while he was in office. Having the right Anerican president at the right time is also vital. You can bet that Ukraine and the rest of our European allies are thankful that Joe Biden is president. Trump either would've done nothing, or he might've actually helped Vladimir Putin pull off his invasion. Trump was a badly flawed and---in my opinion---politically compromised leader. Putin owned him, and the truth of that is just starting to emerge.

@Steve-0220

Жыл бұрын

​@kellywalker8407 You also should remember McNamara was A Champion for his fav Ford, the Edsel, just like he was for the "One Size fits ALL" F-4, when he was Secretary of Defense. Which IMHO - IT DID NOT!

@rianmacdonald9454

Жыл бұрын

@@robertmaybeth3434 and it takes brainwashed americans believing their news PR to think Russia isn't GOING TO WIPE THE FLOOR WITH YOU. So you spend 30 years breaking every part of the agreement made to end the cold war, put bases and strike capability right on Russian door step - against said agreement, send your navy subs into Russian Seas consistently, again against said treaty - THEN YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO COMPLAIN WHEN RUSSIA STARTS TAKIN ACTION TO PROTECT IT BORDERS. america is not the best, never was, and never will be. You stole technology from the Russians(USSR at the time), The USSR led all the way, usa only won due to fractional banking, out spending the USSR, and you are in trillions of debt still trying to out do everyone - While Russia is in the black and has assets usa could only dream off - when this kicks off, usa is gone with, they will be out spent, out preformed and completely destroyed. america is no longer a super power, you are holding on by a thin string, which will snap when Russia openly challenges you. AND I FOR ONE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT DAY VERY SOON. edit - ''but even they had to realize they didn't stand a chance against all of them combined.'' - also you think that because you are listening to your own PR news outlets. Unlike usa - Russia doesn't broadcast everything they have - they have no need like the usa to go ugg ugg ugg look at what caveman here has, oh I have a big stick - case and point - remember Trump boasting about usa having the biggest and best MOAB, with in what 2 weeks, what did Russia show on parade, oh yeah thats it a much bigger and better MOAB than yours. There is something to letting your enemy think they have the upper hand and are better, and will win easily - so that when the first engagements happen and usa is utterly decimated - the effect that will have on soldiers moral will win the war.

I’m happy you mentioned rules of engagement. I feel it is the most underrated variable when talking about the need to dogfight.

@nexpro6118

Жыл бұрын

The US politians lost the, Vietnam War, it wasn't the lose of the US Militray. The insane and idiotic rules and policies cut the balls off the US military and the US military strategy. Politians telling US military TO NOT target and TO NOT bomb certain targets because the politians didn't want to piss off the Chinese government....not letting US aircraft target/bomb certain North Korean ammunition depots and military staging bases and North Korean High Command Centers is what caused the US to lose the War. The last war that the US fought where ALL politians let the US military Generals fight the war, was in, WW2. I mean, A WORLD WAR was one in just 4 years.....while Vietnam was 11 years and didn't resolve anything. This should have been a wake up call to not let politians dictate war strategy...but no.....Korean War is like a 50/50 military strategy and Politian strategy. US War in the Middle east(21 years) was a waste because the Middle East countries own militaries didn't have the stomach to fight and defend their own countries. That's not the fault of the US military. The US military immediately took control of both countries and made an environment that would let the countries own militaries grow and train but they refused and are full of corruption. Was the US supposed to stay and police the middle east forever? The people who say the US military lost the Middle East war also say that the US shouldn't have to stay in the middle east....so they are contradicting their own views. Lol

@koekiejam18

Жыл бұрын

Wasn’t the majority of air combat in desert storm within visual range? I know most kills were with the Aim-7 but i thought that due to the amount of friendly aircraft in the area ROE were strict.

@Omegacalgar

Жыл бұрын

@@koekiejam18 The CENTAF Commander was General Horner and this quote here shows his thinking, "Long before the war started, we concluded we couldn't live with unrestricted BVR because of the stealth at night, primarily. And we also concluded it wasn't required because the Iraqi's weren't going to pose that big a threat. We were going to take out their command and control and then we were going to shoot them down. So, the decision was one of practicality, not one of doctrine." The USN wanted to shoot BVR but another quote, "Stan Arthur (Admiral and commander of NAVCENT) came to see me because the F-14 guys wanted to use the Phoenix. I understood exactly where he was coming from, and I asked Stan, "Please send your case to Schwarzkopf, and let him adjudicate it. This is one area where we have an honest difference of opinion. Both sides have validity." So he did that. Unfortunately, Schwarzkopf (General and CENTCOM Commander) called me in and said, "Explain this to me." So, I was put in the position of defending Stan in front of Schwarzkopf, which I did. And then he said, "What is the alternate argument?" And then I gave him my argument, and he said, "Write me that answer and I'll send it." So, I just wrote the answer back to Stan, "I understand where you are coming from, but the trouble is the risk is higher than the benefit." Quite frankly, what we did after that was give the F-14s BVR shot capability if we knew that there were no allied aircraft in a given area." Found these quotes from P. MASON CARPENTER from his thesis Joint Operation in the Gulf War: An Allison Analysis. The last part I'll paraphrase but basically to make the USN able to use their Phoenix missile would be at the detriment of the bombing campaign because the USN needed a 100 mile radius around Baghdad to be a no fly zone by Coalition forces to make sure there could be no fratricides because at the time the USN planes could not technologically fulfill the ROE of two independent verifications of bandits. The USAF F-15Cs could do this but most initial contacts by AWACs were at under 50 miles so technically BVR but dual confirmation by the F-15s essentially meant they were already within visual range, meaning if the F-15 could carry Phoenix they wouldn't use it anyways. word salad.

@koekiejam18

Жыл бұрын

@@Omegacalgar I appreciate your effort but i have absolutely no clue what kind of point you are trying to make with this aptly named word salad

@hpodgurski9055

Жыл бұрын

If you can’t trust the protocols to prevent blue-on-blue incidents without visual ID, you obviously can’t make beyond-visual-range kills.

NVAF operations were a good example of making the most with what you've got. They made very effective use of their Russian-supplied air defense systems, took advantage of any inflexibility in American tactics, and were quick to adapt to changes. Their Russian interceptors, not burdened with bombs or extra fuel for long missions, were performing the task for which they were designed. Pilots were vectored by ground control to engage when they had an advantage- and not when they didn't.

@attemptedunkindness3632

Жыл бұрын

"I'm not a devious man by nature... but when you're unarmed, your tactics might gunna be downright Archimedean." -Buster Scruggs

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

The Vietcong have a legendary reputation that is not deserved. The US wiped out 2.5 million of them. The US lost 50000 troops which was a much lower figure than WW2 or Korea. People talk a lot of nonsense when it comes to conflicts like Vietnam.

@jerryle379

Жыл бұрын

​@@bighands69 only around 1,3-5 million vietnamese soldier kill in all our war since 1945 ( include the last war again Chinese and Cambodian that lasted up to 1990 and war again insurgent like fluro in Vietnam and Hmong in lao ) 2. You forget to count south Vietnam and us allies who join your war 3.many american vet die later from PTSD and wound from the war that didn't get count as combat kill.

@jerryle379

Жыл бұрын

​@@bighands69 if on equal fighting with out arty and plane support the result will be much more closer 😃but then american have Superior firepower and still lost say alot. Never invade other nation is the lesson , invader never end well , look at Russia kill more Ukrainian but in the end they will lost just like america lost in Vietnam

@danpatterson8009

Жыл бұрын

@@bighands69 The draft ended three months before I turned 18, so no, I wasn't there. But with all due respect to those who did their duty and made sacrifices, it has been a VERY long time since I heard anyone crow about how "we" did in Vietnam. My point was that the NVAF made the most of their very limited resources. The effectiveness of their efforts is evident in the changes in US tactics during and after the war, was well as the influence on the design of American fighters that followed the Phantom.

The loss ratio of navy F-4’s without guns was half of that of air force F-4’s without guns. Tactics! Everyone was happy when the F-4 finally got a gun. The USAF was run by bomber Generals. That wasn’t an issue with the navy. Gen Robin Olds USAF talked about that.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

Not everyone. Some pilots complained the gun required the use of a smaller radar and negatively affected handling characteristics due to the extra weight up front.

@pogo1140

Жыл бұрын

Not tactics. Training

@Idahoguy10157

Жыл бұрын

@@pogo1140 …. New tactic developed, then cadre trained other F-4 crews.

@ConnorGadson

Жыл бұрын

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD complaining doesn’t mean they preferred not having a gun.

@baronc252

Жыл бұрын

@Pogo not really a training issue, but a shift in doctrine. Only to realize you had it wrong and should rewrite the playback. You can be highly trained, but crappy doctrine and tools will still waste a good pilot.

I was in the USAF from 1974 to 1980. The first three years I was a jet engine mech on F4Es stationed at MacDill AFB in Florida. I served with and had a chance to talk with Viet vets, one had "some" kills which he never talked about. We even had one fighter which I saw only once that had I think 2 kill markings on it. So this video struck home with me both angering me and reminding me of things I was told. The biggest thing that I was told was the ROE, once they had ID'ed the enemy as North Vietnamese they were too close for really good Sparrow ops. Plus the fights were usually down low where the radar guidance didn't work the best, due to ground clutter I was told. But things did change were they were getting for more aggressive in training, one pilot that I knew accidentially over G'ed his plane during ops over the Gulf. The G Meter couldn't be reset and I heard from one troop that the wings partially separated from the fuselage, there was a noticeable gap between. Again this video angered me since it is accurate and damning of how ops were at the time.

@BionicRusty

Жыл бұрын

Just remember, though, that hindsight is always a great thing. It’s easy to say all the things noted in the video as so much has been learned since then, as so much will be learned from now, 50 years forward.

@user-ec8xo7qq1v

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like the G metre acted like a shock indicator on expensive and fragile goods. As a commercial passenger in a 747, I was involved in the heaviest landing imaginable, short of collapsing the undercarriage. It felt as if the pilot threw the aircraft onto the runway. with the overhead luggage containers spilling open and dropping their contents onto the bewildered heads of many. This was a United Airways flight, and I really hope its sensors were jammed in the upper register of 'Gulp.' It should have received a full and thorough mechanical inspection after that flight.

@mikethompson2650

Жыл бұрын

@@user-ec8xo7qq1v I was told by the crew chief on that plane that the G-meters would reset, in fact pilots had a habit of resetting them after EACH flight. Don't know if that is normal or trying to cover any mistakes. But seems that the G meter in this case was damaged by the G loading. If my old memory is right the meters maxed out at 13 Gs! The pilot who was an instructor in a class I had had some time at the base hospital. Seems his spine had compressed more than normal. Ouch. He did walk funny that evening and we commented that he wasn't sitting well. This and the time a plane crashed in the swamp near Avon Park were the only two major flying events that I remember.

@keirfarnum6811

Жыл бұрын

I see internet aviation experts say all the time that WVR combat is no longer going to happen. I always tell them that one can never make assumptions about what will happen in aerial combat; there are just too many unknowns to make such assumptions.

@keirfarnum6811

Жыл бұрын

@@user-ec8xo7qq1v I would guess your pilot was a former Navy aviator; doing a carrier style landing. 😁

I flew the F-4B in Vietnam and my old squadron VMFA 323 is pictured in this video several times. I was a Marine pilot so most of our work was air to ground and I wouldn't have wanted to be in any other plane that was there. The F-4 was a wonderful bird that was rugged and powerful and always got me home. The air war over North Vietnam was a mess mostly because of the Pentagon and their stupid ROEs and not realizing what the North's tactics were. The Mig-21 did not have much of a radar if any, and depended on ground-based radar for guidance. They were almost strictly hit-and-run usually from the rear. There were so many different aircraft in the air over North Vietnam at one time that a visual ID was required before shooting. That wiped out any use of the Sparrow which was not ready for prime time no matter and the AIM-9 wasn't much better. Don't let anyone tell you that the day of the dogfight is over. We haven't fought a serious air force since Vietnam and for any pilot to say show me a modern dogfight, I will say we thought the same thing in Vietnam and we were wrong. Politicians make the ROEs and they usually don't have a clue what they are doing. In the Gulf wars, almost every shootdown had a visual ID requirement. Luckily we had AWACs flying all of the time and they helped some but still with allies planes in the sky, a visual was required. Any future NATO war will be the same and the long-range missiles will be useless once again. Our leaders had better realize that stealth doesn't work once your enemy has his eyes on you and makes that fateful turn toward you. Then it becomes pilot skill and close in weapons of which the gun is huge.

@chrisdigiuseppe7717

Жыл бұрын

respect. thank you.

@TamagoHead

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your service. (I lost an uncle there and have his flag). The F4 is still flying in other militaries. My dad was in the new SAC AF, not TAC AF. I’m glad you were skilled enough to survive and are still alive. A pal who was in theater live c-ration butter cake. (He had PTSD)

@TamagoHead

Жыл бұрын

Hopefully modern friend or foe allows for non-visual launch. Again, thank you for your service & Semper Fi.

@Shaun_Jones

Жыл бұрын

It’s strange, though; the F-15 was supposed to have incorporated all of the lessons learned in Vietnam, but I’m pretty sure that it has shot down more enemy aircraft with laser-guided bombs than with its cannon.

@TamagoHead

Жыл бұрын

@@Shaun_Jones put down the pipe pal. 🤫🙏

That's some VERY in-depth analysis. That's why I'm subscribed. Y'all rock! Keep on rockin'.

Do people not understand how AWACS has changed air combat and new missile and radar technology

Another exhaustively informative video. Thanks for such an illuminating take on a familiar topic that most people deliver superficially. Alex, you rule.

Great episode well researched, you managed to give a different flavor of the Aircraft types missions and limitations into 18 minutes well done good data density.

As always extremely informative as well as entertaining.

Alex, thanks for providing a complete story of what happened over Vietnam (as pertains to air-air performance). "Not having a gun" is the most ballyhoo'd phrase around, yet you point out how much more was going wrong at the same time.

@barrybarlowe5640

Жыл бұрын

Not having a gun AND not having missiles that would hit. If you get into a fight with bad weapons or none, and your opponent has a working weapon, all you can do is run or die.

@Jim-Tuner

Жыл бұрын

Yeah. And just like Alex says, what happened in Vietnam was nobodys fault. Everyone had honorable intentions and nobody was ever wrong about anything.

@oleg7298

Ай бұрын

Thanks to Soviet air defense systems, Vietnam successfully dealt with 9 thousand U.S. aircraft. The Vietnamese press reported that due to the presence of Soviet air defense systems in the country, the United States lost a huge number of combat aircraft, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles. A significant number of the latter were shot down by means of combat aircraft of Vietnam, and, apparently, Soviet pilots also made a significant contribution to this. "Few people remember that about half a century ago, in the devastating war with the US Air Force in North Vietnam, the Pentagon used thousands of UAV sorties and new types of aircraft. According to recently declassified US data, during the Vietnam War, the US Air Force lost 9,929 aircraft due to fire damage from the ground, including 3,744 aircraft due to "technical failures", of which 5,607 helicopters of all types, as well as 578 UAVs (UAVs fell mainly in the north of Vietnam). Previously known figures were much lower, and these were the highest losses of the US army in all the wars in which they participated after World War II," the Vietnamese newspaper Soha reports. We are really talking about the largest losses in the ranks of the US Air Force, moreover, at the time of the outbreak of the armed conflict, the US military was armed much better than the Vietnamese army, but thanks to Soviet air defense, even massive attacks were repelled long before American pilots could strike.

Thank you for covering this topic. Very much appreciated.

Good video! You covered all points that in many years of asking questions to veterans and knowledgeable people (grunts, Navy, a Thud-pilot, analyst etc.) had been given to me in the answers. By the way, if anyone ever asks "Why?!", a friend of mine, North Vietnamese is still very happy and thankful for the attempt to liberate his country back then. His family managed to get out, escape to the south still during the conflict. He grew up in Europe, because, a true North Vietnamese, didn't want to live in the South. Almost like asking a New Englander to live in Florida.😅 Instead he'd have preferred the North to be free, like the South back then. I digress. Cheers and much fun creating more great content!

I read as many articles as I could during the Vietnam war and was always shocked by the losses in the air and on the ground the US and allies suffered. I am still learning of the many reasons for this and appreciate your insight.

It was the F-22, and fear of B-2, is why we have not had an AA engagement. So you cannot fail to build the best because we have not had to use them in air battle. We build the best so we will not have to.

@j.f.fisher5318

Жыл бұрын

But what is "the best?" A maneuverable fighter with a vertical tail that can be detected and tracked via long wave radar? Or a tailless air superiority platform that sacrifices agility for near invisibility? Since we can only have one or the other in our premier anti-air platform, it's a gamble either way. The USAF is gambling we'll keep seeing BVR engagements like those of the last few decades. Going the other way is gambling the S-400 can't track via long wave radar.

@winkingandnodding

Жыл бұрын

Truth is, the best gunslingers understand that one is scared and the other is glad. I salute the F22 pilot that crept up to an Iranian F4 and, once alongside, asked the Iranian to withdraw. Long gone are the daily demands of commands asking for body counts like a football match.

@illeyez505

Жыл бұрын

​@@j.f.fisher5318 s-400 is old and can't track well.

@Mournful3ch0

Жыл бұрын

​@@j.f.fisher5318we have invested heavily into anti-radiation missiles and electronic warfare aircraft - with the size of the array required to spot a 5th generation fighter at distance, I would think they would be a prime target for cruise missile bombardment before the air invasion

@kellywalker8407

Жыл бұрын

​@@winkingandnodding I get into a gunfight, I'll be neither glad nor scared....just sad that I had to take a human life. Because that dumb sumbitch is going to lose.

Regarding the F-4 Smoke Trails, we were a Young Tiger KC-135 crew & arrived late for a refueling mission due to maintenance on the jet. Ground control was vectoring us onto our flight of F-4's. We didn't have them on radar (standard for that mission) & asked for their position. The Control stated that we were almost directly behind & on the same course. He finished by saying, "You're close to their track & Flight ??? is about 40 miles ahead. You should see their smoke trails below you!" Sure enough, about 1000' Below us were 4 sets of black dense smoke trails, which we followed to a Visual join-up with our receivers & successful refueling.

Great content! Also thank you for reading your text with pacing and emphasis, instead of talking 90 miles and hour and ramming everything together through over-editing like so many KZreadrs do.

A really fascinating, and well researched, video. I learnt a lot, and am very pleased that YT suggested your channel. You have a new sub!

a good commander must be a part of their unit not just another suit sitting in an office making decisions based on incomplete information. a lot of times the commanders thought the information they had was complete because they had read a report but they never actually took the time to talk to the men and women under their command or ask them how/what they would do to help improve their situation. and this still happens in todays military. this is a great video, the best videos Sandboxx has made yet! much more neutral and comprehensive and that itself makes it better than a lot of the other one sided view military documentaries on youtube. thanks :)

Spot on Alex. Dan Pederson's book on Top Gun covers a lot of what you talked about. We tied our pilot's hands in Nom, big mistake.

@marksanney2088

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely, my friend. I could not agree more. When politicians insert themselves into warfare, failure seems to follow. Rush Limbaugh used to make a statement which I will paraphrase, ‘Armies are used explicitly for killing people and breaking things, to the point that the engaged enemy surrenders.’ Politicians who reside in the two dimensional world in warfare have much less insight when compared to those individuals who are immersed in the three dimensional world of combat.

@dragonstormdipro1013

Жыл бұрын

​@@marksanney2088Then why did you lose in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Informative and truthful historical coverage of that aviation phenomenon which was not proclaimed before 😊

Excellent video as always

I like the old saying, "Peace is just the time in between wars." We have been in a time of peace, but war is always on the horizon...

@j.f.fisher5318

Жыл бұрын

But even in the gulf wars the only gun kill was an A-10 shooting a chopper.

Dogfights are largely irrelevant to war today. This is true. However, that doesn’t mean they will never happen. This is a competency that is needed but it should be appropriately valued

@jaywarice7943

Жыл бұрын

guns are plan b like a knife or handgun for a grunt

@newguy954

Жыл бұрын

Actually it will get more relevant since 5th gen fighter jet would only be able to see other in close ranges.

@kennethng8346

Жыл бұрын

Hopefully true, but remember the enemy will always try to push you into a scenario that favors them. So I think at least some dogfighting skills should be taught. Just like in the army you have a gun, but you should also know how to use a knife.

@jonathanpfeffer3716

Жыл бұрын

@@newguy954 Close range combat doesn’t equal a dogfight. Dogfights happen at the merge, but modern fighters have EOTS and IRST capabilities that are impossible to fool and have ranges of 20-30 ish miles. The most you would see is a long range sidewinder shot, an aircraft probably wouldn’t risk a dogfight even if all their missiles were expended.

@jloiben12

Жыл бұрын

@@kennethng8346 “Hopefully true” and let me repeat what you said but in different words. This isn’t me saying “omg you dumb dumb you just repeated what I said.” I am just making it clear that what you described is exactly what I am saying. Like yes. True. We need to have a plan for this but it also needs to be recognized for what it is. There is a reason why we don’t see a bunch of knife fights in Bahkmut

Great vid, well done.

Another well researched and intelligent video. Excellent video

I thought I read somewhere in the beginning months in Vietnam, USN F4s shot down MiG 17s with Sparrows at BVR. However I believe due too a friendly fire incident ( F8 was shot down at BVR by mistake I think?), that RoE changed and pilots had to visually identify aircraft before shooting.

F-8s always had guns. They were even known as "the last gunfighter". But.....almost all their kills in Vietnam were with Sidewinders. I think they only achieved one pure gun kill and one other that was damaged by a missile and finished off with the gun. Sure, bullets are cheap, but is the weight and volume of a gun or guns a fair trade for a couple of more missiles? I've always stated in these kinds of comment sections that it wasn't the lack of a gun. It was the lack of training in close-in air to air, too restrictive rules of combat and poor training in using the equipment within its design parameters. Not only do you need to keep the target illuminated until impact to score a Sparrow kill, you need to launch within the missiles parameters of min and max range and angle on the target. This video mostly backs that up. I think with AIM-9Xs and EOTS in the mix, there's even LESS reason for a gun.

@Leo___________

Жыл бұрын

You should look into the testing of laser weapons against missiles and artillery projectiles. This could be a future curveball that completely changes the game.

@whiskeythree1622

Жыл бұрын

Hey Mishn0, The Fighter Pilot Podcast has a great episode on the F-8 -- you might like it. Through the years I've heard very positive things about that aircraft. Gotta say -- you've got a badass avatar 👍🏽 What unit & where can I read up on it? Would you have a recommended reading list, either fiction or not? Appreciate it 🤙🏽

@Mishn0

Жыл бұрын

@@whiskeythree1622 Thanks. VMFA-531, the "Grey Ghosts". The first night fighter squadron in Navy/Marine service. Stood up in 1942 with Brewster Buccaneers (for training), went to the Solomons in 1943 with Lockheed PV-1 Venturas fitted with the British AI Mk. IV radar and extra .50s in the nose. I served with them from '78-'82 at El Toro with F-4Ns (on the flightline right next to VMFA-323 featured prominently in this video). We deployed on the USS Coral Sea with 323 and participated in Carter's Iranian hostage rescue attempt in April of '80. 531 were actually the first fixed wing squadron to be deployed to Vietnam. Not much in the way of a reading list, I'm afraid. Only inclusions in general Marine-Air books and nightfighter stuff as far as I know. They were disbanded in 1992.

@whiskeythree1622

Жыл бұрын

@@Mishn0 That's some Legacy right there. Will enjoy checking into some unit history. Appreciate the reply 👍

I can confirm the Sparrow's poor performance being a former Marine and Naval Aviation Repair Facility technician. My shop was beside the Sparrow guidance system repair line at NAS Alameda. At lunch time, I played chess or cards with one of the inspectors of the Sparrow line in the late 60s. I was told that both Naval Weapons Depots, Norfolk and Concord, each provided 10 Sparrows for live tests at target drones. Norfork NWD-10 of 10 failed. Concord NWD- 9 of 10 failed. I also recall a USAF Colonel and 5 kill ace who used a gun pod under his F4 with every 5 round a tracer! Thank you, Alex, for this story!

@winkingandnodding

Жыл бұрын

Typo. 9 of 10 from Concord.

Really great video. Thank you!

This video helped answer many lingering and important questions about the Vietnam air war. The narrative is well-written, as uual, but shows substantial research and reflection. As a late convert to the missiles-are-the-future camp, I was an early admirer of the F16 development rule, to keep design as light and simple as possible. That guideline produced an outstanding fighter for its day, so outstanding that military brass could not wait to burden this light, agile aircraft beyond its intended design. All to say, air power is in constant redefinition.

@termitreter6545

Жыл бұрын

What exactly was outstanding about the original F16, from a military perspective? The whole "fighter mafia" stuff was kinda crazy. And the Viper only became one of the best multirole fighters in existence when they dropped all those restraints.

@tomshackell

8 ай бұрын

@@termitreter6545 I guess that maybe depends on what we mean by the "original" F-16, to my mind that's the F-16A Block 1. As I see it that F-16 took some of the ideas from the "fighter mafia", such as being highly manoeuverable & low cost, and married it with ideas the "fighter mafia" were initially against, like having a radar. Those instincts to develop a low-cost and agile fighter weren't wrong, and that input was valuable, it's just the idea was better when not taken to an extreme. Often a bunch of people with differing ideas can produce something that's better than any of them individually would have come up with.

The 1991 Gulf War proved that close range dogfighting is essentially over. The first missiles in the 1950s had ranges of less than a mile with a PK of around 10%. Today missiles are nearly 130+ miles with a PK of around 90%

@pogo1140

Жыл бұрын

In DS 18 kills were made by WVR missiles or BVR missiles launched WVR. 16 kills were BVR and almost all the missiles that missed were launched from BVR. BVR missiles had a kill ratio of 34% while WVR missiles had 67%. Oh and there were 2 guns kills.

@pogo1140

Жыл бұрын

Also in 1999 2 F-14's and 2 F-15's lunched 6 BVR missiles (AIM-120,AIM-54, and AIM-7's) were launched at 4 MIG-25. All 6 missiles missed.

@fahadkelantan

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for sharing. I appreciate the statistics. There are a few things: 1. During DS most engagements had to be WVR due to the rules of engagement. We didn't want fratricide. 2. The BVR missiles in 1991 like the AIM 120A were only about 30 miles. Meaning after they shot the first round of missiles, the second round would be WVR. Today at 130+ miles, you'd have to shoot 3 or 4 rounds of missiles before you enter WVR. This is the main reason why the two NGAD programs show fighter jets that don't look super meanuverable but rather super stealthy and low drag. 3. Your stats prove my point. 2 gun kills as opposed to Vietnam. From what I can tell from wikipedia there were about 50 Air to Air gun kills during Vietnam. The main key difference in technology is the computer chip. Old 1970s computers were not that accurate. In early 1990s they were better. Now thirty years after DS, modern missiles have chips that are equal to super computers during the 1970s. If you say the real world combat stats were 34% during DS, then today I am 100% certain the accuracy today is well above 70%. So combining points 2 of range, and 3 of PK. We can calculate the probability of BVR kill in the modern era. At 3 rounds of missiles x 70% real world PK rate, we can use the (Probability of a Series of Independent Events) to calculate the chances of a kill. It is 97.3% of a BVR kill after three rounds of missiles. Thanks for sharing. And have a great weekend.

Best ever explanation. Brought all the reasons together of Vietnam. Great. Thx

I was an Air Force ordnance loader and did a tour in Thailand from 1970-1971. This is an excellent and very informative video. It's a mistake to say the F-4 in all its iterations did not have air to air cannon. They did. The navy developed 20MM M-61 Vulcan belly pods, however the sight system was not computerized and a single 1 second trigger pull discharged 200 rounds. With a capacity of 1000 rounds one quickly exhausted their ammo. The F-4E was developed for the Israeli Air Force and had an internal M-61 Vulcan but ammo capacity was still limited however it did have a computerized fire control system.

One of the biggest fallacies I see in discussions of air combat is this idea that once fighter aircraft are within visual range of each other, there will be dogfight, i.e. a fight where performance and maneuvering determine the outcome. This is simply not true. Ever since the first days of air combat in WW1, pilots have avoided dogfighting like it is the plague, even though in both WW1 and WW2, all engagements had to take place at visual range. Instead, fighter pilots almost always choose to engage and attack the enemy before they have even been detected by the enemy. Pilots employ tactics such as attacking-from-the-sun, boom-and-zoom, using altitude or speed advantages to stay out of weapons range, etc. One good example of this is the Flying Tigers, who had a very high kill ratio despite the fact that they relied on hit-and-run tactics rather than maneuvering dogfights. In fact, all Allied pilots in the Pacific theater were prohibited from dogfighting because the Japanese fighters were always far more maneuverable than the Allied aircraft. The reason for this is simple: Even if you are winning in a dogfight, you are also inviting everyone in the vicinity to attack you while you are tangled up and vulnerable in the dogfight. That's why pilots have always worked in pairs. So they only thing that has really changed is that fighter pilots can now employ stealth tactics as they always have except at much longer ranges. They can attempt to see-first-shoot-first in radar BVR environments, not just WVR environments. Even if you prove undoubtedly that engagements will mostly happen at visual ranges in the future, you haven't even begun to scratch the surface on the whole question of whether or not dogifights will be commonplace. Based on the entire past history of air combat, the answer to that question is almost certainly no.

An excellent brief, sir! I'm totally not a bot! Also, have you a breakdown on the air defense systems used in Ukraine? That would be kewl...

Another brilliant video Alex…🍻

Amazing video. Wow. My great uncle was an F-4 pilot off the USS Coral Sea in Vietnam. He was in Top Gun

One thing that put vietnam ahead of america was the planes engines and paint schemes. The phantoms could be seen easily, even moreso with the giant black smoke trails the engines left which made tracking them during a dogfight easy. The MiG was silver that was hard to see and had non smoky engine exhaust so it was hard to see and hard to keep track of in a dogfight

There was also the policy of sending F-105's on bombing runs out of Thailand on the same route at the same time over and over again. The Air Force brass didn't seem to learn as they were losing 105's in big numbers.

Great and informative video brother

sandbox. An amazing video bro. Amazing. Love Sandboxx.

Could you cover the incident between the SU-27s and the MQ-9 Reaper, or the MQ-9 reaper by itself? Or just military drones in general?

Coming in from the same direction, at the same level, at the same time of day, made US combat aircraft a veritable turkey shoot…until we finally stopped that stupid policy. Edit: and they didn’t call the F-105 the Thud for nothing. It had speed, and that was all, and that just sped it into the ground all the faster. Thud. And pilots learned to use the F-4’s speed against the MiGs. The Phantom could turn at speeds that would take the wings off the MiGs, and that became the F-4’s advantage.

Thank you for sharing 🏆🇺🇲🙏⭐

THAT is one of your best Alex. The title says it: "The whole truth..." . Keep these coming and I am here for them.

not only is dogfighting irrelevant, it is also extremely costly as a requirement. stealth, range and speed can be complementary design priorities, but maneuverability sacrifices everything and then some. dogfighting is relevant in a limited number of scenarios when you already messed up, but war is not about worst case scenarios. we are not trying to design airliners, but win in a contest between systems. you want a coherent doctrine with a clear idea of how to gain advantage and win. dogfighting simply isn't a winning doctrine.

@luigimrlgaming9484

Жыл бұрын

War is a worst case scenario and is almost always a worst case scenario in the battlefield.

@luigimrlgaming9484

Жыл бұрын

Also flying bricks still aren’t very useful.

@levislevitas

Жыл бұрын

@@luigimrlgaming9484 that's not the point.

everyone in the comments after watching be like: yup imma ignore everything he said.

@GageEakins

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that is my read on this as well. But herp derp, DOGFIGHTS AND GUNS.

Well put Alex!!!! 👍👍👍😎

Exactly! I've been wondering why no one brought it up before. Bravo.

An overwhelming majority of air to air kills during the Vietnam war on both sides were achieved by air to air missiles. Only a few were achieved by guns.

@iansmith5174

Жыл бұрын

Then again, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. There's nothing more frustrating to a fighter pilot than to have an enemy aircraft right in front of him but he can't shoot it down.

@CannedCoochie

Жыл бұрын

@@iansmith5174 As a devil advocate, there were reasons to NOT carry guns. In times where high alt high speed bombers carrying nukes were a majority threat, and many of them would carry defensive gunners that outranged a fighter/interceptor guns, it was obvious why designers would think that lighter faster planes that could attack with missiles from longer ranges was a much better idea. It just didn't work because missile tech and maintenance was not there. Even to this day many argue missile tech is still not good enough to fully replace guns.

The sidewinder has come a long way since Vietnam!

Very authoritive as always Alex . 👏

Good reporting

I think if mode 4 IFF had been available during the Vietnam conflict the rules of engagement may have been different.

@j.f.fisher5318

Жыл бұрын

Also for a long time we have had AWACS that provides a backup to IFF by tracking who is coming and going through the airspace at much greater range. Its a big reason that AWACS is seen as a high value target. Also the data fusion we are using gives us another way of verifying that IFF is right.

This is a classic security paradox. There's a substantial chance that the reason there haven't been any major air combat events is actually because the US has such impressive air combat capabilities. If we degrade our capability in a specific engagement domain, enemies who are convinced they can exploit that effectively may be more willing to let their air forces actually take off.

@Heike--

Жыл бұрын

"Want to buy an anti-tiger charm for $5 billion? Why not, it works! There are no tigers in miles of here!" Meanwhile we could buy nice things for ourselves for that money. Like healthcare, or a border wall.

@kermitbuns

Жыл бұрын

@@Heike-- that's what he security paradox is. If you spent that money on healthcare or a border wall, we would likely end up embroiled in even more expensive and endless wars

Great job you know your stuff 👍

About 30 seconds in, I had the feeling you were going to say, "what I'm about to tell you is classified and could end my career." Excellent video. Thank you.

Very well stated. I've been trying to tell people about the whole bit with Vietnam for a while now. As far as Ukraine goes, it is testament to the idea that dogfights may not be dead, but there are also additional factors to consider. Many times, UA pilots are unable to close the distance when facing RU fighters because they lack the Active Radar Homing (Fox-3) missiles RU fighters are equipped with such as the R-77-1. This gives RU pilots the range advantage, and the ability to turn cold for safety from Ukraine's earlier Fox-1 missiles like the R-27 (If I'm not mistakes, they still only have the standard R-27R, and not even the ER with extra range). Therefore, UA pilots are hesitant to tangle with RU pilots due to their disadvantageous position and as far as I know, tend to use themselves as bait to lure RU fighters over friendly SAM nets where they can be shot down more safely. It is for this reason aircraft like F-16 would be absolutely monumental for Ukraine's air force as at the very least, it will level the playing field for air to air combat given said Vipers will undoubtedly come with Aim-120 AMRAAM missiles. My guess would be that Ukraine may get the Aim-120C-5 or C-7, which preforms similarly to R-77-1 if public figures are to be believed. In the realm of modern air combat, the dogfight must be taught as a plan B, but not heavily emphasized. Proper BVR training and IADS construction is what will make or break the air war.

@mountedpatrolman

Жыл бұрын

The recent RUSI report details that the F-16 is the complete wrong choice for Ukraine, due to the complexity of flight crew and maintenance issues. It details why Gripen is the absolute best option for Ukraine. Simplicity, very short take off so that squadrons can be moved around quickly, and launch surprise attacks from improvised air strips, and finally the capability to carry the Meteor.

@Registered_Simp

Жыл бұрын

@@mountedpatrolman Notice the part where I said aircraft LIKE F-16. I recognize the Gripen is the best FIRST choice for Ukraine due to the superior air to air capability, allowing them to achieve air superiority first. But after that, F-16 would be a fantastic second choice due to the massive reserve of spare parts and pilots who have flown it. 27 countries operate or have operated the Viper, which means there is no shortage of experience or training materials. Viper is also capable of carrying a wider assortment of NATO ground ordinance to put warheads on foreheads and capitalize on the air superiority Gripen gives Ukraine.

@that.schamp

Жыл бұрын

@@Registered_Simp Gripen is probably the best platform for Ukraine, but probably not going to happen due to limited availability. The combination of Typhoons with Meteors with a ground attack platform like the F-16 Block50 and/or F-18C (platforms with full HARM integration) would absolutely change the game with the ability to effectively counter both air and ground threats to Ukrainian aircraft conducting ground attack operations. Britain has stated they are willing to provide Typhoons. I expect F-18C's to become available as more F-35's enter service. I wish our leadership could settle on a plan and start training in time to provide support this summer...

@spazzey0

Жыл бұрын

I could see BVR quickly devolving into WVR if something isn't done quickly.

@megazombiekiller9000

Жыл бұрын

@@mountedpatrolman if only the F-20 were available.

Dogfights were rare in Vietnam. Most F-4 and F-105 losses were from ground fire during ground attack missions.

Actually stood up and applauded this video. Lolololol!!!! Awesome!! What knowledge.

I heard an anecdote regarding Robin Olds. When he had the F-4 Wing, there was a RAAF contingent that was flying CA-27 Sabres. The RAAF Sabres were not cleared to fly up north, they were local air defence. Old made an agreement with the RAAF Co to bounce his F-4s when the F-4s were returning from a mission or on a local training flight. I don't know if this is a true account, but it lends some credence to the USAF recognizing that their F-4 crews were lacking in ACM against dissimilar aircraft. Th eCA-27 was close to the MiG-17 in performance and size.

Beyond visual range is worthless if the ROE requires visual identification of the potential enemy. Hopefully we at least learned this lesson but I won’t hold my breath.

@GageEakins

Жыл бұрын

We did, just look up the air campaign during Desert Storm. Now all that is required is approval from an AWACS to engage.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

F-4s got electro optical systems to identify tracks visually outside visual range. Too late for Vietnam. The F-14 got TISEO. The F-35 had the EOTS/DAS. You can see visually beyond visual range. Lenses and cameras do wonders.

I do think dogfights will become less common but definitely will still happen and therefore we need to keep training pilots on it and providing aircraft that are capable if the time comes to get down and dirty in the merge

Nice work Alex. You brought it all together in a very convincing way and put many pieces of what I thought together. If I may add. I think all USAF aircraft should be gunslingers. Galaxy with multiple gun pods ( front and back) come on.

I'm flying in Vietnam, and today I had to hold for the Mig 21s based in Danang to train. A lot of history on those wings

Dog fighting against a Unmand Aircraft that can turn inside you each and every time dosen't a dogfight make.

@luigimrlgaming9484

Жыл бұрын

An unmanned drone that suffers a processing error mid flight.

Well there's some irony in theoretically understanding that two 5th gen fighters with roughly equivalent stealth or jamming, could potentially not see each other on radar until they are within 15 - 20 knots, with further limited target-locking, also due to the stealth and jamming of 21st century tech. This puts the dogfight potentially back on the menu between 5+ gen fighters, depending on how stealth is used.

Thanks mate.

Some really interesting points in this, glad I clicked on it! I was stationed at RAF Wildenrath W Germany in the late 70s. We had the RR Spey engined Phantoms, more power and much less smoke! The heavier airframe for the British engines negated the the extra power...??? That's what happens when you let political desk pilots get involved! F4 still one of the finest warbirds ever put in the sky!!! Great video!

The real truth is that the Vietnamese won over you yanks, fought hard, got their country back and you made a video essay where you cope.

You can develop your doctrine, procure equipment to support it, train your aircrews to execute it and practice it until you can do it in your sleep. But never forget, your enemy has veto power.

Well done episode Alex and Hector too. 😏

LET'S GO BRANDON

@JonWintersGold

Жыл бұрын

His win was Yuge tho, and managed to escape the Unpresidented negative press covfefe and did it Bigly.

@moekitsune

Жыл бұрын

What does this have to do with the video

I'll expect to see air-to-air combat over Iran this year. Terrific video.

It would be fascinating to learn what the RAF were like during this period. Were they also only trained as interceptor pilots?

Pretty much what Dan Peterson says in his book Top Gun. In the early 1960s the US Navy banned dogfighting practice and fighter crews had to hold their own in locations off the coast away from the eyes of command. In Vietnam flying out of Yankee station the F-4s were often at a disadvantage not being able to use their AIM-7s BVR. Also there was a high frequency of malfunctions with that AAM. one of the first things Peterson did when he was tasked with starting Top Gun was to send one of his instructors to Raytheon where he worked closely with the technicians there to harden the AIM-7 so high G maneuvers and impacts from launching and landing and rough handling by ground crews did not disable them as easily. The AIM-7 became a much more reliable weapon in part because of direct guidance from Top Gun staff. Who also designed an air combat syllabus based on their experience flying in combat over Vietnam. They also learned every aspect of the F-4 and how to get every advantage from them. Like using the F-4's power advantage to take a dogfight with a less powerful Vietnamese fighter into the vertical where the US fighter had a much higher probability of success.

@rustyshaklford9557

Жыл бұрын

I could only imagine the number of friendly-fire kills there would have been had they regularly launched missiles BVR.

The thing assumptions is they tend to make an "ass" out of "you" and "me" both. Thanks once again for the highly informative and in depth analysis of the problems the US faced in the Vietnam air war.

@MrDino1953

Жыл бұрын

That would need to be "assume" in order to make that old platitude work.

Nice video.

The F4 Phantom II really looks the part of a fighter aircraft, like one sob brawler you’d not want to meet in a dark alley.

The whole point of training is not just to learn how to do your job, but to prepare for situations you hope will never happen. Military pilots and aircrew are trained to survive in the wilderness, just in case. Fighter pilots should also be trained to dogfight, just in case.

Thank you

While the US airmen were having so much difficulty with MIGs in Vietnam with their F4s , the IAF were shooting down the same type of aircrafts in the ME in droves with their F4s

@jimw1615

Жыл бұрын

The U.S. Rules of Engagement changed the game in Vietnam for everyone.

Man I love education. Thanks sandboxx.

The same people that say dogfighting is dead are probably the same people that say tanks are pointless because of aircraft or javelins, that carriers are pointless because of long-range bombing and refueling. Hell, we've seen the return of horses in modern warfare. Having these skills to use tools and keeping them polished and sharp are what we need.

SPOT ON!!! 👍

The Vietnam war lead to the doctrine that the US should have air superiority. Since that, they have had by far the best fighter jets in the world. And that is still true today.

On the strategy part, we went in the same way and out the same way every time. We attacked the same time of day every time, and the enemy was ready... every time.

The dogfight advocates also forget one important point about Vietnam. It was America that went and looking trouble in SE Asia and found it clapping back. If America is not constantly looking for someone to fight to preserve its oppressive hegemony on the rest of the world, we wouldn't be debating this question in the first place.

Guns were indeed standard on fighters... that's why the F-8 Crusader and F-5 Freedom Fighter had them (USN and USAF respectively). The F-4 however... wasn't a fighter, at least not by design. It was meant as a long range interceptor like the Air Force's F-101, and interceptors had been built without guns since the late 40s with the F-86D. It was the USAF who pressed the Phantom into service as a multirole fighter, and the first thing they did? Strap a gun to it. In 1963, two years before the first US deployments to 'Nam. That gun only ever scored 7 MiG kills, as opposed to the hundred odd with the F-4s' missiles, just to put things into perspective... The US Navy never used a gun on the F-4 at all, and they managed about 4x higher kill to loss ratios throughout the conflict. The gun was already near obsolete as an air to air weapon in Vietnam, and that was half a century ago, just with the most BASIC air to air missiles. The modern kinds have 10x the effective range and 30x the manoeuvring capability! Even IF close range fights can occur in the modern day (and that's a very big 'if' with AESA radars, AWACS etc.)... they won't be using guns, any more than a modern navy ship would engage an aircraft carrier with its guns!

There is a lot to be said about saving face. If an adversary knows they are completely out classed, they aren't going to lose aircrafts needlessly or demoralize their troops especially their pilots. However, if you have peer to peer or near peer to peer combat aircraft, you will have air to air combat. If both aircrafts end up having the same capabilities, they may negate each other. This may in the end up in having to resort to dogfights to resolve who will have air superiority.

Is there any inside info on the new AFRL Mutant Missle ? Just asking...

Nice to hear that Alex is recovering from the scratchy voice bug. 👍👻😜

I was a crew chief on F-4's, did transient alert, etc many years ago ...I asked a captain why bother putting guns on the jets... he said" the bad guys had more jets than we had missiles, pretty hard to to take them out when you've shot your last missile! He had a point.

Alex, I remember hearing some USAF Instructors who had missed the Korean War or were not too confident in combat had intentionally not trained their pilots fully as they should have so as to improve their reputations as great Fighter pilots. Like what's his name Boyd who claimed to have been part of the F-15 Eagle Development but was really just asked about Wing data and had actually worked to strip the F-15 of the hardware that would make it the famed Aircraft it is today. He taught some kind of get in the mind of the enemy pilot concept that the USAF seems to still work with, but isn't very proven or considered practical. Anyways, a lot of the pilots shot down had been instructed by him and he had tried to get rid of the missiles to add more guns, like WW2 levels that one WW2 American Ace said, "That a guy who can't hit with four, won't hit with twelve." Forget who said that, but he was the exact opposite of Boyd.

My sense is the winner in close quarter air compact engagement in air powers of the future will be to the aircraft with nearby air-to-air missile caddies that can take targeting information from the close quarter aircraft. The winner of air superiority on the other hand will be the side of that tends to kill enemy fighters when they reach the edge of visual range but have not been visibly acquired yet. Also more important to air superiority than aircraft on aircraft combat will be the wild weasels vs ground air.

Sometimes in the age of missiles, guns would be your best friend in a tricky situation too.

I do think it's funny everyone blames the lack of guns, but the Navy had a better A2A loss ratio than the Air Force before AND after the Air Force got guns. And the Navy never did.