"I have been obsessed by military aviation from an early age." I turn 61 this week and I think we share the same obsession. This channel is one of the most intelligent and well researched I have ever seen. Dad was an aerospace engineer for Boeing in the 1960's , we hit every airshow within 100 miles of any place we lived. I had aviation books by college that filled three walls.All mainly history and biographies.I studied Gunston , Ethell,and Boyd .And read every biography you could imagine. Was a critical care nurse across the US for 28 years, and sat late at night talking to so many later in their lives that flew. SOmany had no one interested to hear their stories And so sad many of my patients started out as WW2 vets, then as the years passed Korean vets, then at my retirement, Vietnam . Had several close friends that flew USAF A -10's, 23rd RAG in the first Gulf War. I could write a book if only my memory can holdout. Your work is so well researched and has an excellent grasp of real world jet combat during those years,not like the work I see in other works. Please keep it up. BTW look into the Mig 19 at Wright Patterson AFB Museum and who "donated" it.
Reading your comment gives me chills from my childhood as me and my dad would and still go to airshows within my area MA to qounset point ( rest in peace qounset point) and all the way up to New Hampshire airshows. I too grew up talking with my grandfather who was a WWII Ticonderoga vet for hours on end and I often would go to airshow to have the aviation books I read signed by the pilots im talking about 100s of signatures over years and at one point met one of the only Vietnam navy aces...all the best for yoor endeavors Garrett
I suggest you keep an audio recorder close at hand, and when a remeniscence comes up, tape the thing. Even if you don't write the book, ensure the recordings go to someone who might.
This channel has rapidly become one of my favorites. Information is always presented in an accurate and precise manner on every subject. Like this one here, I look forward to future releases.
@@Roddy556 When your audience is seriously interested, and not just an ignorant mass to be entertained, you can (must?) step up the quality and information.
Yes - it confused me initially and I got it wrong in my first version of this video. I didn't really appreciate that the two aircraft were different in origin and capabilities. There is just so much to these FME programmes.
ANOTHER home run! Thanks for bringing these obscure but important programs to light. You also helped fill in some of the missing Century Series numbers. 👍 I know I keep mentioning this, and it's not to diminish the skill and courage of the VNPAF pilots, but the Rules of Engagement that hamstrung US pilots went a long way towards evening the odds against the Americans. Is there a chance that you are working on an ROE video?
@@notapound It will be complicated, as ROEs could change daily. Also, the B-52 bombing campaign over NVN was actually 'Linebacker II'; the original Linebacker was the op name for B-52 missions over S. Vietnam.
There's also the fact that most of the F4's and especially the F105's shot down would have been loaded with bombs on strike mission's and were bounced, notice how it was only 3 F8's shot down, that's because they went "up north" in a fighter configuration flying escort on strike mission's, there's a better comparison. There's also things like when loaded with bombs and trying to hit their target on a strike mission the bomb laden aircraft also had to contend with ground fire, how many of those MIG kills were against a jet that'd already been hit by ground fire and was trying to get to the ocean? Using bomb laden aircraft that'd flown strike mission's through some of the most intensive ground fire in the history of warfare isn't the best comparison, I wonder what the numbers would look like if you only include fighter v fighter results? And even including kills against aircraft loaded with bombs and every other disadvantage like the MIG's having support from right underneath where the fight was happening like radar that could vector them in on other aircraft from above and behind which was blind to the other aircraft's radar, despite all those disadvantages and it was still 2 to 1.
It's interesting that in Vietnam, against the Migs, the U.S. Air forces has to relearn the same lessons and apply similar tactics as they had done 25 years earlier against light and highly maneuverable Japanese fighters. Stick together, "Boom and Zoom", avoid a turning fight, use greater engine power to accelerate out of the fight.
Great vid mate. I love the style of presentation. Matter of fact, no bullshit… Straight to the point. Good, or bad. Good stuff cat. By all means, please continue! 😎👍
I"m somewhat suprised that the North Vietnamese, appreciating the limit versatility of the N-37 37mm cannon in dogfighting against fighters, never substituted it for an additional NR-23 23mm cannon or for thst matter more 23mm rounds. In your video, you state that the U.S. evolution identified that the MiG-17 poor gun sight. This seems odd given that MiG had incorporated the ASP-4N gunsight and SRC-3 radar, themselves copies of the American AN/APG-30 radar and gunsight, into the MiG-17. The MiG-15 had suffered for its lack of a radar gunsight, but in 1951, Soviet engineers obtained a captured F-86 Sabre from Korea, and copied the optical gunsight and SRD-3 gun ranging radar to produce the ASP-4N gunsight and SRC-3 radar.
AIUI, the MiGs were originally intended as strategic bomber killers, as were the early US missiles. Against big, lumbering targets the important thing was to hit hard, not necessarily often.
The 23 mm NR-23 wasn't much better than the N-37 against fighters, as it had an equally low muzzle velocity of 690 m/sec. For comparison the 20x102 cannon used by the USAF (M61 Vulcan in F-104/105, M39 in F-100) had muzzle velocities around 1050 m/sec, or over 50% faster. That makes a huge difference against a maneuvering target that requires unpredictable lead. wrt "poor gun sight" it's all relative. The A-1CM optical gunsight and APG-30 radar were state of the art in 1953 but not in 1968. Also the low muzzle velocity of the cannon meant that the MiG-17s gunsight had to be much more accurate just to achieve comparable results.
@@patrickchase5614 I once saw an illustration showing how a 6000rpm total rate of fire was required to ensure at least one hit on a fighter-size target in a crossing shot--the least favorable gun solution.
There's some anecdotes from Colonel George Broughton,who fought Mig 15's in a Thunderstreak in Korea,and later Mig 17's from F105's in Vietnam ,"They could have had me (in Korea) several times, their guns were so unharmonized, it was like a Roman candle being pointed at you." But Mig 19's with NR 30's were another matter.Then there's Chuck Yeager's legendary response to USAF questioning after flying the captured Mig 15, about the side to side oscillation at high speed. .Yeager was a huge USAF SAC bomber mafia hater. "It swung side to side in in a dive, the exact width of a B 36 wingtips"
@@petesheppard1709 IMO a pure crossing shot like that (where the target just flies across the pipper at full sped with no attempt at tracking) is at best a psychological tactic, to try to get the opponent to "flinch" and turn away into a less advantageous position.
Great video, well done. A lot of very interesting research and info in there. One thing though - I had to put it onto 1.75 playback speed to cope with the pace of delivery.
I’m surprised either the Air Force or the navy could hit anything with the versions of the sidewinder and the sparrow that they had. Neither missile had the ability to track at greater than 1G.
@@restaurantattheendofthegalaxyThe sidewinder had no problem hitting MiG-17’s - it did however fail to explode occasionally which is how the Russians developed the K-13 Atoll series missile by reverse engineering the Sidewinder (Atolls are plug and play compatible with Sidewinders (including the internal parts)).
@@allangibson8494 Overall hit rate for the AIM-9B in Vietnam was about 23%. Not exactly stellar... until you compare it to the AIM-7 Sparrow which had a 9% hit rate. With ANY of the air-to-air missiles in Vietnam, the standard procedure was to ripple fire your entire loadout of 4 missiles on a single target. At least then you'd have a pretty good chance of hitting it at least once.
@@harveywallbanger3123 The Navy AIM-9D’s and G’s did rather better than the single kill with the AIM-9B from an F-4B. At Mach 1.7 the B model wasn’t the fastest either. The G could also turn twice as fast as the B model too. Gun kills weren’t exactly common either…
@@harveywallbanger3123How much of the poor hit rate was from pilots not using the weapons properly, shooting when not in the proper envelope? Training cannot be underestimated. Rippling off four missiles without getting a good fire solution is a good way to drive up the miss rate by four more misses. Better to adopt the USMC state of mind on marksmanship: "One shot, one kill."
Love the MiG-17. I just get a kick out of that planform, no idea why. Generally speaking it's just one of those great all around jets that just works, and was good enough to hit above it's weight, but also cheap and simple enough to be widely used.
Thanks for this. If this is true, it’s a fantastic story that I haven’t really been able to get out of my head. It’s worthy of a full Hollywood account. I am currently building a Airfix Diorama in tribute.
I like the way you get to the point with no irrelevant bullshit. This is a first rate, informative video about a vintage fighter, the MiG-17, and its capabilities long after it became outdated. Surprised it could shoot down the much larger Phantom F-4s in the Vietnam War. ✈️
7:23 ironic how the MiG has an inscription "OTLICHNYI" (Exceptional) which I believe was a reward for pilots who exhibited, well, exceptional piloting skills.
Anyone know the name of the film with of clips of Vietnamese MiGs chasing US Thuds that is used during these videos? I figure it is a Vietnamese movie, but I'm just curious; thanks!
Looking at that MiG next to that Mirage and how small it actually is still surprises me even though i have scale models of both of them. Although i think the Mirage is a little lower in that photo which makes it look slightly smaller than it actually is. Both of them are smaller than most US WW2 fighters overall.
Mig 002 did have a periscope. You can see it clearly in the pictures taken in Israel. The mirror was later removed in Israel prior to its delivery to the US
Excellent layout showing history and operational capabilities of these aircraft. Originally thought outmoded by age, they became concern, then the cause for re-thinking air tactics and weaponry. Still unsure of why the defecting Soviet aircraft were usually returned as any obtained aircraft, especially given the Cold War status, should just become prizes to be written off as losses.
Back when intelligent codenames were still the order of the day. Fantastic! I'm an older boy now, but wow am I learning good stuff from dedicated mil-hist RUclipsrs these days: For example, Rex's Hangar opened my eyes to the fact of the famed 'P-40' actually being *two* distinct aircraft models lumped together - almost the same as calling the MiG-15 & MiG-17 the same aircraft. Completely makes sense now why the RAF called the one series 'Tomahawk' and the later series 'Kittyhawk'; the manufacturer produced them as two separate models (but the USAAF didn't worry about it and just serialised them together, creating a deep confusion which persists to this day - see Wikipedia!). Now, the era of the 'legacy' fast jets which were the foundation of the air forces which served during my childhood are explored by this channel in such a way that I am only now truly understanding them and the strange, awesome world which they inhabited, deep inside the design bureaus & up in the skies of the Cold War. Fantastic work! So many thanks are due.
ROE had a big effect in Vietnam. In the immortal wisdom of Yoda’s tortured syntax - ‘Do or do not. There is no ‘try’ ‘ This observation does NOT apply to the rugby pitch however… 😃
This is a great update to an already very good history and analysis. But your use of kill ratios to illustrate your point that the US Navy did a better job of communicating the air-combat-maneuvering (ACM) lessons from the exploitation of HAVE DRILL/FERRY, compared to the US Air Force, is off the mark in terms critical variables. They probably did better, but the the kill ratio difference is not the proof. After the exploitation, the VPAF almost completely stopped flying the MiG-17 against the USAF, but did keep flying them against the USN. VPAF MiG-17s made a single kill each against the USAF and USN after the March 1968 partial bombing halt, both in 1972 during Linebacker (with a second probable kill against the USN). The USAF makes no MiG-17 kills, while the USN records show 14 MiG-17 kills (and one additional probable), which is a tremendous disparity. Your conclusion would be sound if "everything else was held equal," but it was not, as a) the VPAF mostly stopped using the MiG-17 against the USAF and instead flew it relatively aggressively against the USN, and b) USAF and USN pilots were in different environments as far as situational awareness (SA). The reason for the aircraft difference is that the VPAF was able to GCI-vector around and behind for high speed hit-and-run attacks on USAF formations incoming from Thailand (calling for the supersonic MiG-21), which was their strongly preferred tactic, while they could not do so effectively with the USN aircraft coming in from over the sea (for multiple reasons). The USAF tactics during Linebacker in 1972, of keeping speed and altitude higher than during Rolling Thunder was effective in stopping most MiG-17 attacks. This is not to say that the USN didn't do a better job communicating ACM lessons than the USAF - I fully accept that they did. And I it was both important and effective that the USN did so as they continued to face MiG-17s. But the USAF did not, and I would dispute the argument that the lack of USAF MiG-17 kills in 1972 was the result of lack of ACM ability on the part of USAF pilots. They were not losing dogfights to the MiG-17. Almost all the USAF kills and loses in 1972 are against MiG-21s and a few MiG-19s, with almost all the USAF loses being the result of successful hit-and-run attacks were the downed aircrew was unaware they were under attack (low to no tactical SA). USAF pilots won almost all the "aware" fights. USN pilots did too, but they were aware much more often than USAF pilots due to relatively fewer VPAF attacks from the 6 o'clock and the much better USN system of threat warning and radar coverage which provided significantly better tactical SA (a whole other long comment). The critical variable was not the communication of ACM lessons against the MiG-17. All that said, I think you were judicious in your analysis, and do a great job including and presenting the relevant history and facts. I look forward to future shows on HAVE DOUGHNUT (MiG-21 exploitation) and Teaball (www.jstor.org/stable/26276772)? Best regards
Very quickly! Such a short range and endurance wasn’t that unusual for “point” interceptors of the period though - early versions of the MiG21 and EE Lightning were similarly handicapped and the F104 wouldn’t get very far without the considerable external tankage carried as a standard load on later models.
They didn't launch until ground control saw a favorable situation developing; then they went up, attacked and ran for home. For a good part of the war, US rules of engagement did not permit the Americans to attack unless the MiGs were actually attacking, and even then second-guessing by higher ups was not unknown.
That series is from the mid 1980s. Most likely at the time much of this was classifed. Also, afaik the series happened in the US, in an environment completely diferent from these events.
Well done! Typical American response initially, followed by introspection and analysis, then recovery. Unfortunately, the USAF evidently lost the lessons learned book. Robin Olds always seemed a bit bitter about the missile guys running the air force. He seemed to be rather outspoken.
And Olds, as the fightingest guy in the USAF but with the biggest mouth in the USAF, got 'sidelined' to the Air Force Academy, rather than being given the job in something like 'precombat advanced flight training' to prep pilots for the trip to Southeast Asia.
RIP Mr. Brown. I have no doubt he tried to save that asset. I would love to know how the F-5 faired against the MIG-17. Makes you wonder why there were only 2 rounds.🤔 Seeing how the F-5 was used as an agressor for decades and decades says a lot to me. Maybe they didn’t want that information getting back to Northrop.🤨
The MiG-17 Fresco in Vietnam had a Very, Very Tight Turning Radius. But, the MiG-17 Pilot had Poor Visibility to the 6 O'Clock Position. And the MiG-17 had a Slow Roll Rate. US Navy F-4B Phantom II's took Advantage of this During ACM in Vietnam.
Getting into a turning fight with a Fresco was usually suicidal, so all but the stupidest pilots avoided it eventually. As you said, boom and zoom tactics worked well... when you knew where the bad guy was. The real problem with the Fresco was when they snuck into a mission package due to bad radar US radar coverage and played havoc among the strike aircraft. This happened multiple times. Even a Mig-17 will make short work of an Intruder with 8 bombs on the wings... I can recall an instance where some low-ranking Fresco driver almost made ace in a day that way.
@@harveywallbanger3123 Yeah, that's right. The MiG-17 Fresco was Extremely Dangerous in a Turning Fight/ Dogfight...Lt. Randy Cunningham had a Terrific Dogfight with a MiG-17 Fresco Ace/ Vietnam with Vertical Rolling Scissors in his U.S. Navy F-4B Phantom II... Eventually Downing the MiG-17 Fresco with an AIM-9B Sidewinder...
Wait, they tested the F-100 against the F-86 and they result was that they advised them to run if they ever had to fight basically its equivalent? So they replaced a jet with an inferior jet? What was the point of an F-100 if it can't even beat an older fighter? The F-105 at least had the excuse that its not really a fighter at all (i still don't know why they called it an F and not a B or A, when air combat had nothing to do with why they built it). But the F-100 was supposed to be the new and improved air superiority fighter. I hope that was just because they werent trained as fighters any more and mostly intended to be used as strike jets and they felt it wasn't their job to be engaging with enemy fighters except in emergency. Otherwise that's pretty sad. And i like the F-100. I'm a sucker for swept wings.
MiG-15 a German-British plane. The fuselage is almost a copy of the German Focke-Wulf TA 183 plane plus a copy of the British engine Rolls-Royce Nene Mk. I, which was so accurate copy that parts could be replaced with the original engine.
As an aviation fan my whole life and seeing how the Mig 17 busted up F4s in "nam, it's cons sure made up for it's pros. They (Vietnam) can thank their lucky stars that the fuckin dolts in charge of the Air Force didn't equip a gun on the F4 or the KDR would have been a fuck ton different!
The death of the pilot is avoidable. USA don't have components to maintain the MiG-17. Therefore, they shouldn't fly the MiG-17 as though the MiG-17 will not fail due to wear and tear. The Soviets don't design indestructible aircraft.
The MiG-15 wasn’t a “first generation” jet. It wasn’t even the first MiG swept wing aircraft (that was the MiG-8). The first MiG jet was the MiG-9 with copies of Jumo 004 engines. The MiG-15 was a second generation jet, like the P-86 Sabre.
@@roo72 Don't think so. Negative diedral to increase manoeuvrability whe using swept wing. T tailor greater stability, boundary layer fences to prevent early stall on seep wings, air brakes to prevent overspeed on dives. And simple is a plus in military hardware. Easy to produce, easy to deploy, easy to maintain, easy to use.
@@alfaeco15 Brilliant means creative and innovative. There was nothing creative about the MiG. It was a tractor which was bolted together and accidentally happened to fly.
@@roo72 Totally disagree. From mig 15 brilliant design, which enabled mig 17 and 19 evolution. There was nothing comparable to mig 15 on the west when it was introduced. Even the Sabre fell short on performance. Only better American training and avionics saved the day in Korea.
@@alfaeco15 Early on, the "15" had a sizeable altitude advantage over the Saber. That, along with ground control, numbers and their supposed sanctuary in Manchuria should have given the Soviet regiments an overwhelming advantage over MiG Alley/The Yalu....but it didn't work out so well.
US pilots were "better train". NO US pilots had zero training in Air to Air combat maneuvers aka how to dog fright and in many squadrons were actively penalized if the engaged in Air to Air combat maneuver training.
TF? Vietnamese shot down more a/c with fighters than they lost of fighters. 8.3:1 and 2.8:1 lol. some first class bullshit. all in all USA and "allies" lost 12,500 a/c of all types in the war, North Vietnam, ~150. Same shit with Korean war, MiG-15's shot down way more a/c than they lost, yet "USA" claims 10:1 kill ratio, shits stupid.
"I have been obsessed by military aviation from an early age." I turn 61 this week and I think we share the same obsession. This channel is one of the most intelligent and well researched I have ever seen. Dad was an aerospace engineer for Boeing in the 1960's , we hit every airshow within 100 miles of any place we lived. I had aviation books by college that filled three walls.All mainly history and biographies.I studied Gunston , Ethell,and Boyd .And read every biography you could imagine. Was a critical care nurse across the US for 28 years, and sat late at night talking to so many later in their lives that flew. SOmany had no one interested to hear their stories And so sad many of my patients started out as WW2 vets, then as the years passed Korean vets, then at my retirement, Vietnam . Had several close friends that flew USAF A -10's, 23rd RAG in the first Gulf War. I could write a book if only my memory can holdout. Your work is so well researched and has an excellent grasp of real world jet combat during those years,not like the work I see in other works. Please keep it up. BTW look into the Mig 19 at Wright Patterson AFB Museum and who "donated" it.
Ææ
Reading your comment gives me chills from my childhood as me and my dad would and still go to airshows within my area MA to qounset point ( rest in peace qounset point) and all the way up to New Hampshire airshows. I too grew up talking with my grandfather who was a WWII Ticonderoga vet for hours on end and I often would go to airshow to have the aviation books I read signed by the pilots im talking about 100s of signatures over years and at one point met one of the only Vietnam navy aces...all the best for yoor endeavors
Garrett
The Mig 19 is one you don't hear much about, almost like it was forgotten in favor of the scary Mig 21.
@hc6368 What a life. Please write that book!
I suggest you keep an audio recorder close at hand, and when a remeniscence comes up, tape the thing. Even if you don't write the book, ensure the recordings go to someone who might.
This is the best short summary of the MiG 17 as an aircraft and the US exploitation programs that I have ever seen. Bravo!
It is! :)
This channel has rapidly become one of my favorites. Information is always presented in an accurate and precise manner on every subject. Like this one here, I look forward to future releases.
Thanks for the kind comment - glad you're enjoying it!
Great channel. I find it really incredible that one person can produce better aviation content than any television network ever has.
@@Roddy556 When your audience is seriously interested, and not just an ignorant mass to be entertained, you can (must?) step up the quality and information.
@petesheppard1709 I know but it's one person with minimal help. The dedication is incredible.
@@Roddy556 👍💯
Interesting that the airframes had their own different Have names.
Yes - it confused me initially and I got it wrong in my first version of this video. I didn't really appreciate that the two aircraft were different in origin and capabilities. There is just so much to these FME programmes.
I'm looking for a Have not.
@@notapound>>> Have At It...😊
Congrats on the little context insert, I really wouldn't have marked this channel as likely to pick one up! great content as usual.
"And you were launching a Falcon, so there was that as well". Burn.
14:17 A fellow IL-2 1946 BAT enjoyer! And you mention HAVE PRIVILEGE. Another great video!!!
ANOTHER home run! Thanks for bringing these obscure but important programs to light. You also helped fill in some of the missing Century Series numbers. 👍
I know I keep mentioning this, and it's not to diminish the skill and courage of the VNPAF pilots, but the Rules of Engagement that hamstrung US pilots went a long way towards evening the odds against the Americans.
Is there a chance that you are working on an ROE video?
Glad you enjoyed it! Yes, I am working on an ROE video, but it might be a while as I need to get into Linebacker!
@@notapound It will be complicated, as ROEs could change daily.
Also, the B-52 bombing campaign over NVN was actually 'Linebacker II'; the original Linebacker was the op name for B-52 missions over S. Vietnam.
There's also the fact that most of the F4's and especially the F105's shot down would have been loaded with bombs on strike mission's and were bounced, notice how it was only 3 F8's shot down, that's because they went "up north" in a fighter configuration flying escort on strike mission's, there's a better comparison.
There's also things like when loaded with bombs and trying to hit their target on a strike mission the bomb laden aircraft also had to contend with ground fire, how many of those MIG kills were against a jet that'd already been hit by ground fire and was trying to get to the ocean?
Using bomb laden aircraft that'd flown strike mission's through some of the most intensive ground fire in the history of warfare isn't the best comparison, I wonder what the numbers would look like if you only include fighter v fighter results? And even including kills against aircraft loaded with bombs and every other disadvantage like the MIG's having support from right underneath where the fight was happening like radar that could vector them in on other aircraft from above and behind which was blind to the other aircraft's radar, despite all those disadvantages and it was still 2 to 1.
It's interesting that in Vietnam, against the Migs, the U.S. Air forces has to relearn the same lessons and apply similar tactics as they had done 25 years earlier against light and highly maneuverable Japanese fighters. Stick together, "Boom and Zoom", avoid a turning fight, use greater engine power to accelerate out of the fight.
Great vid mate.
I love the style of presentation.
Matter of fact, no bullshit…
Straight to the point. Good, or bad.
Good stuff cat.
By all means, please continue!
😎👍
Thanks :)
I"m somewhat suprised that the North Vietnamese, appreciating the limit versatility of the N-37 37mm cannon in dogfighting against fighters, never substituted it for an additional NR-23 23mm cannon or for thst matter more 23mm rounds.
In your video, you state that the U.S. evolution identified that the MiG-17 poor gun sight. This seems odd given that MiG had incorporated the ASP-4N gunsight and SRC-3 radar, themselves copies of the American AN/APG-30 radar and gunsight, into the MiG-17.
The MiG-15 had suffered for its lack of a radar gunsight, but in 1951, Soviet engineers obtained a captured F-86 Sabre from Korea, and copied the optical gunsight and SRD-3 gun ranging radar to produce the ASP-4N gunsight and SRC-3 radar.
AIUI, the MiGs were originally intended as strategic bomber killers, as were the early US missiles. Against big, lumbering targets the important thing was to hit hard, not necessarily often.
The 23 mm NR-23 wasn't much better than the N-37 against fighters, as it had an equally low muzzle velocity of 690 m/sec. For comparison the 20x102 cannon used by the USAF (M61 Vulcan in F-104/105, M39 in F-100) had muzzle velocities around 1050 m/sec, or over 50% faster. That makes a huge difference against a maneuvering target that requires unpredictable lead.
wrt "poor gun sight" it's all relative. The A-1CM optical gunsight and APG-30 radar were state of the art in 1953 but not in 1968. Also the low muzzle velocity of the cannon meant that the MiG-17s gunsight had to be much more accurate just to achieve comparable results.
@@patrickchase5614 I once saw an illustration showing how a 6000rpm total rate of fire was required to ensure at least one hit on a fighter-size target in a crossing shot--the least favorable gun solution.
There's some anecdotes from Colonel George Broughton,who fought Mig 15's in a Thunderstreak in Korea,and later Mig 17's from F105's in Vietnam ,"They could have had me (in Korea) several times, their guns were so unharmonized, it was like a Roman candle being pointed at you." But Mig 19's with NR 30's were another matter.Then there's Chuck Yeager's legendary response to USAF questioning after flying the captured Mig 15, about the side to side oscillation at high speed. .Yeager was a huge USAF SAC bomber mafia hater. "It swung side to side in in a dive, the exact width of a B 36 wingtips"
@@petesheppard1709 IMO a pure crossing shot like that (where the target just flies across the pipper at full sped with no attempt at tracking) is at best a psychological tactic, to try to get the opponent to "flinch" and turn away into a less advantageous position.
Great video, well done.
A lot of very interesting research and info in there.
One thing though - I had to put it onto 1.75 playback speed to cope with the pace of delivery.
The F-8 is huge for a single engine fighter. It almost fits in the same footprint as the Phantom.
You know, the Navy never added a cannon to the F-4, but still had better kill ratios. Maybe it was the tactics, not the hardware.
I’m surprised either the Air Force or the navy could hit anything with the versions of the sidewinder and the sparrow that they had. Neither missile had the ability to track at greater than 1G.
@@restaurantattheendofthegalaxyThe sidewinder had no problem hitting MiG-17’s - it did however fail to explode occasionally which is how the Russians developed the K-13 Atoll series missile by reverse engineering the Sidewinder (Atolls are plug and play compatible with Sidewinders (including the internal parts)).
@@allangibson8494 Overall hit rate for the AIM-9B in Vietnam was about 23%. Not exactly stellar... until you compare it to the AIM-7 Sparrow which had a 9% hit rate.
With ANY of the air-to-air missiles in Vietnam, the standard procedure was to ripple fire your entire loadout of 4 missiles on a single target. At least then you'd have a pretty good chance of hitting it at least once.
@@harveywallbanger3123 The Navy AIM-9D’s and G’s did rather better than the single kill with the AIM-9B from an F-4B. At Mach 1.7 the B model wasn’t the fastest either. The G could also turn twice as fast as the B model too.
Gun kills weren’t exactly common either…
@@harveywallbanger3123How much of the poor hit rate was from pilots not using the weapons properly, shooting when not in the proper envelope? Training cannot be underestimated. Rippling off four missiles without getting a good fire solution is a good way to drive up the miss rate by four more misses. Better to adopt the USMC state of mind on marksmanship: "One shot, one kill."
Excellent video and commentary! You sir are an expert!
On a navigation training mission and land at an enemy airfield...the irony...
Brilliant video 📹 & thank you for sharing. 😀
Love the MiG-17. I just get a kick out of that planform, no idea why. Generally speaking it's just one of those great all around jets that just works, and was good enough to hit above it's weight, but also cheap and simple enough to be widely used.
Yes, it was one of the very best Soviet fighters for the time it was built.
Bravo ! Great video / doc .
I have always liked the Wing Fences on the early Mig's.
Would love to know the source for the footage at 11:26 -12:00 please? The sequence with the mig17 attacking the f-100’s.
Thanks for this. If this is true, it’s a fantastic story that I haven’t really been able to get out of my head. It’s worthy of a full Hollywood account. I am currently building a Airfix Diorama in tribute.
I like the way you get to the point with no irrelevant bullshit. This is a first rate, informative video about a vintage fighter, the MiG-17, and its capabilities long after it became outdated. Surprised it could shoot down the much larger Phantom F-4s in the Vietnam War. ✈️
I'd have loved to have seen the looks on the Syrian pilots faces when they realised where they'd landed :D
They probably said "whoopsie daisy"
The problem isn't landing in Israel but when they return to syria and brutal dictator Hafez Alassad is waiting them.
7:23 ironic how the MiG has an inscription "OTLICHNYI" (Exceptional) which I believe was a reward for pilots who exhibited, well, exceptional piloting skills.
"..and you were launching a Falcon..." 😅
07:22 mistake there. It wasn´t Czech MiG-17, it was Czechoslovak MiG-21F "0413",Lt. Kvapil was killed during that accident in west Germany.
Anyone know the name of the film with of clips of Vietnamese MiGs chasing US Thuds that is used during these videos? I figure it is a Vietnamese movie, but I'm just curious; thanks!
Thanks for the comment. There’s a link to the Vietnamese film at the end of the video description. Hope that helps :)
@@notapound I should've look there; thanks!
And when they were released back to the Syrian Air Force, their check pilot said, "The two of you have failed your navigation exercise......"
Is it really correct to call A-4 a fighter? Wasn't it designed specifically as affordable and small yet capable carrier-launched attacker?
Looking at that MiG next to that Mirage and how small it actually is still surprises me even though i have scale models of both of them. Although i think the Mirage is a little lower in that photo which makes it look slightly smaller than it actually is. Both of them are smaller than most US WW2 fighters overall.
@notapound >>> Great video...👍
Mig 002 did have a periscope. You can see it clearly in the pictures taken in Israel.
The mirror was later removed in Israel prior to its delivery to the US
I know you focus on air to air... but if the A-6 Intruder is one of your favourites... I don't think any of us would mind a video on it.
Excellent layout showing history and operational capabilities of these aircraft. Originally thought outmoded by age, they became concern, then the cause for re-thinking air tactics and weaponry. Still unsure of why the defecting Soviet aircraft were usually returned as any obtained aircraft, especially given the Cold War status, should just become prizes to be written off as losses.
Back when intelligent codenames were still the order of the day. Fantastic!
I'm an older boy now, but wow am I learning good stuff from dedicated mil-hist RUclipsrs these days:
For example, Rex's Hangar opened my eyes to the fact of the famed 'P-40' actually being *two* distinct aircraft models lumped together - almost the same as calling the MiG-15 & MiG-17 the same aircraft. Completely makes sense now why the RAF called the one series 'Tomahawk' and the later series 'Kittyhawk'; the manufacturer produced them as two separate models (but the USAAF didn't worry about it and just serialised them together, creating a deep confusion which persists to this day - see Wikipedia!).
Now, the era of the 'legacy' fast jets which were the foundation of the air forces which served during my childhood are explored by this channel in such a way that I am only now truly understanding them and the strange, awesome world which they inhabited, deep inside the design bureaus & up in the skies of the Cold War.
Fantastic work! So many thanks are due.
When talking about the air combat over Vietnam the strigent ROE the american pilots were given use to be understimated.
So did they pass their navigation training mission?
At 16:18 this is a line of RF-4C
At 7:04 the guy on the left looks like the smug guys smile on the right has him so secretly pissed he looks literally looks to be fuming and smoking
ROE had a big effect in Vietnam.
In the immortal wisdom of Yoda’s tortured syntax -
‘Do or do not. There is no ‘try’ ‘
This observation does NOT apply to the rugby pitch however… 😃
This is a great update to an already very good history and analysis. But your use of kill ratios to illustrate your point that the US Navy did a better job of communicating the air-combat-maneuvering (ACM) lessons from the exploitation of HAVE DRILL/FERRY, compared to the US Air Force, is off the mark in terms critical variables. They probably did better, but the the kill ratio difference is not the proof. After the exploitation, the VPAF almost completely stopped flying the MiG-17 against the USAF, but did keep flying them against the USN. VPAF MiG-17s made a single kill each against the USAF and USN after the March 1968 partial bombing halt, both in 1972 during Linebacker (with a second probable kill against the USN). The USAF makes no MiG-17 kills, while the USN records show 14 MiG-17 kills (and one additional probable), which is a tremendous disparity. Your conclusion would be sound if "everything else was held equal," but it was not, as a) the VPAF mostly stopped using the MiG-17 against the USAF and instead flew it relatively aggressively against the USN, and b) USAF and USN pilots were in different environments as far as situational awareness (SA).
The reason for the aircraft difference is that the VPAF was able to GCI-vector around and behind for high speed hit-and-run attacks on USAF formations incoming from Thailand (calling for the supersonic MiG-21), which was their strongly preferred tactic, while they could not do so effectively with the USN aircraft coming in from over the sea (for multiple reasons). The USAF tactics during Linebacker in 1972, of keeping speed and altitude higher than during Rolling Thunder was effective in stopping most MiG-17 attacks. This is not to say that the USN didn't do a better job communicating ACM lessons than the USAF - I fully accept that they did. And I it was both important and effective that the USN did so as they continued to face MiG-17s. But the USAF did not, and I would dispute the argument that the lack of USAF MiG-17 kills in 1972 was the result of lack of ACM ability on the part of USAF pilots. They were not losing dogfights to the MiG-17. Almost all the USAF kills and loses in 1972 are against MiG-21s and a few MiG-19s, with almost all the USAF loses being the result of successful hit-and-run attacks were the downed aircrew was unaware they were under attack (low to no tactical SA). USAF pilots won almost all the "aware" fights.
USN pilots did too, but they were aware much more often than USAF pilots due to relatively fewer VPAF attacks from the 6 o'clock and the much better USN system of threat warning and radar coverage which provided significantly better tactical SA (a whole other long comment). The critical variable was not the communication of ACM lessons against the MiG-17.
All that said, I think you were judicious in your analysis, and do a great job including and presenting the relevant history and facts. I look forward to future shows on HAVE DOUGHNUT (MiG-21 exploitation) and Teaball (www.jstor.org/stable/26276772)?
Best regards
How did they do sorties with 30 minutes of fuel?
Very quickly! Such a short range and endurance wasn’t that unusual for “point” interceptors of the period though - early versions of the MiG21 and EE Lightning were similarly handicapped and the F104 wouldn’t get very far without the considerable external tankage carried as a standard load on later models.
They didn't launch until ground control saw a favorable situation developing; then they went up, attacked and ran for home. For a good part of the war, US rules of engagement did not permit the Americans to attack unless the MiGs were actually attacking, and even then second-guessing by higher ups was not unknown.
Imagine the time crunch Me-163 pilots were under.. I think they only had 5-6 minutes of fuel to get to 30,000+ feet and come home.
@@ATBatmanMALS31 And hoping their plane doesn't explode on them...
Funny how the TV series “Call To Glory” didn’t have an episode loosely based on this.
That series is from the mid 1980s. Most likely at the time much of this was classifed. Also, afaik the series happened in the US, in an environment completely diferent from these events.
19:04 Enlightened tastes.
I wonder how they operate so many flight hours in America with out proper maintenance and spear part's
Well done! Typical American response initially, followed by introspection and analysis, then recovery. Unfortunately, the USAF evidently lost the lessons learned book. Robin Olds always seemed a bit bitter about the missile guys running the air force. He seemed to be rather outspoken.
And Olds, as the fightingest guy in the USAF but with the biggest mouth in the USAF, got 'sidelined' to the Air Force Academy, rather than being given the job in something like 'precombat advanced flight training' to prep pilots for the trip to Southeast Asia.
The USAF F-4C Phantom II successfully used Horizontal Hi-Speed "Slashing Attacks" ACM Maneuver to Shoot Down the MiG-17 Fresco in Vietnam.
RIP Mr. Brown. I have no doubt he tried to save that asset.
I would love to know how the F-5 faired against the MIG-17.
Makes you wonder why there were only 2 rounds.🤔 Seeing how the F-5 was used as an agressor for decades and decades says a lot to me. Maybe they didn’t want that information getting back to Northrop.🤨
Why are so many projects called have ______
It’s what they could mustard up in the day!
The US Navy F-4B Phantom II successfully used the Vertical "Egg ACM" Maneuver to Shoot the MiG-17 Fresco Down in Vietnam.
Syrian pilot: “Can I please stay here?” 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The MiG-17 Fresco in Vietnam had a Very, Very Tight Turning Radius. But, the MiG-17 Pilot had Poor Visibility to the 6 O'Clock Position. And the MiG-17 had a Slow Roll Rate. US Navy F-4B Phantom II's took Advantage of this During ACM in Vietnam.
Getting into a turning fight with a Fresco was usually suicidal, so all but the stupidest pilots avoided it eventually. As you said, boom and zoom tactics worked well... when you knew where the bad guy was.
The real problem with the Fresco was when they snuck into a mission package due to bad radar US radar coverage and played havoc among the strike aircraft. This happened multiple times. Even a Mig-17 will make short work of an Intruder with 8 bombs on the wings... I can recall an instance where some low-ranking Fresco driver almost made ace in a day that way.
@@harveywallbanger3123 Yeah, that's right. The MiG-17 Fresco was Extremely Dangerous in a Turning Fight/ Dogfight...Lt. Randy Cunningham had a Terrific Dogfight with a MiG-17 Fresco Ace/ Vietnam with Vertical Rolling Scissors in his U.S. Navy F-4B Phantom II... Eventually Downing the MiG-17 Fresco with an AIM-9B Sidewinder...
Oh you wanted your windscreen back? U mad?
WHAT LAKE????? WHAT?? NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
Преводилац нема појма о свом послу . На Енглеском “ Vets” не значи “ Ветеринар” , него ВЕТЕРАН( Скраћено : Ветс)!
Wonder what the Soviets had ? F-4 ? A-6 ? Maybe an F 16 ?
👍👍
Wait, they tested the F-100 against the F-86 and they result was that they advised them to run if they ever had to fight basically its equivalent? So they replaced a jet with an inferior jet? What was the point of an F-100 if it can't even beat an older fighter? The F-105 at least had the excuse that its not really a fighter at all (i still don't know why they called it an F and not a B or A, when air combat had nothing to do with why they built it). But the F-100 was supposed to be the new and improved air superiority fighter. I hope that was just because they werent trained as fighters any more and mostly intended to be used as strike jets and they felt it wasn't their job to be engaging with enemy fighters except in emergency. Otherwise that's pretty sad. And i like the F-100. I'm a sucker for swept wings.
The MiG 17 is still the best fighter jet in the world.
The F-8s gave the MiG 17 a good fight. Their kill ratio was good. They were still trained in dog fighting.
MiG-15 a German-British plane. The fuselage is almost a copy of the German Focke-Wulf TA 183 plane plus a copy of the British engine Rolls-Royce Nene Mk. I, which was so accurate copy that parts could be replaced with the original engine.
Thank god for 1.25x.
As an aviation fan my whole life and seeing how the Mig 17 busted up F4s in "nam, it's cons sure made up for it's pros. They (Vietnam) can thank their lucky stars that the fuckin dolts in charge of the Air Force didn't equip a gun on the F4 or the KDR would have been a fuck ton different!
Their old Syrian maps hadn't yet wiped Palestine off the map.
The death of the pilot is avoidable. USA don't have components to maintain the MiG-17. Therefore, they shouldn't fly the MiG-17 as though the MiG-17 will not fail due to wear and tear. The Soviets don't design indestructible aircraft.
Sorry USAF misses during Vietnam weren't great. Sparrows were mediocre
Yes; as a fellow quoted by Marshal Michel in his book 'Clashes' said: "boys, that's why they're not called "Hittles"..."
Still the North Korean front line fighter
The MiG-15 wasn’t a “first generation” jet.
It wasn’t even the first MiG swept wing aircraft (that was the MiG-8).
The first MiG jet was the MiG-9 with copies of Jumo 004 engines.
The MiG-15 was a second generation jet, like the P-86 Sabre.
A brilliant design
No. It wasn't, did you even watch the video? It was simple and primitive. That's why it worked the way it did
@@roo72 Don't think so.
Negative diedral to increase manoeuvrability whe using swept wing. T tailor greater stability, boundary layer fences to prevent early stall on seep wings, air brakes to prevent overspeed on dives.
And simple is a plus in military hardware. Easy to produce, easy to deploy, easy to maintain, easy to use.
@@alfaeco15 Brilliant means creative and innovative. There was nothing creative about the MiG. It was a tractor which was bolted together and accidentally happened to fly.
@@roo72 Totally disagree. From mig 15 brilliant design, which enabled mig 17 and 19 evolution.
There was nothing comparable to mig 15 on the west when it was introduced. Even the Sabre fell short on performance.
Only better American training and avionics saved the day in Korea.
@@alfaeco15 Early on, the "15" had a sizeable altitude advantage over the Saber. That, along with ground control, numbers and their supposed sanctuary in Manchuria should have given the Soviet regiments an overwhelming advantage over MiG Alley/The Yalu....but it didn't work out so well.
US pilots were "better train". NO US pilots had zero training in Air to Air combat maneuvers aka how to dog fright and in many squadrons were actively penalized if the engaged in Air to Air combat maneuver training.
TF? Vietnamese shot down more a/c with fighters than they lost of fighters. 8.3:1 and 2.8:1 lol. some first class bullshit. all in all USA and "allies" lost 12,500 a/c of all types in the war, North Vietnam, ~150. Same shit with Korean war, MiG-15's shot down way more a/c than they lost, yet "USA" claims 10:1 kill ratio, shits stupid.