I was in the Air Guard in the late 1970's doing avionics maintenance on F-100's. I got two rides in the back seat of an F-100F. On the second ride we were practicing dogfighting against an F-15. The pilot in my airplane was a colonel who had fought in Korea and Vietnam. The F-15 pilot was a young lieutenant just out of flight school. The colonel got behind the F-15 and flew the F-100 right up behind it and shot it down. After the kill the F-15 pilot still didn't know we were there until his wing man told him.
Thank you for your service Bruce, my Dad flew the Hun in Vietnam from 67-69, shot down in August of 68, but got out to fly again. He also flew 2 missions with the Misty's before he came back to the FWS at Nellis. Nice Video
@@stewscuda - I'm glad you're writing a book about him. Keep in mind your audience as you write -- is it for family records, or for sale to the public? That change how you write the book.
Just for family, thank you for the concerns. Chuck Yeager was the guest speaker at my Dads Graduation, he flew right up to the stage in a F-100, my Dad fell in love with the Hun at that moment
No, I never met the instructor again - but I'm still laughing over it! I have often thought of his best response to my diving down at the start of the engagement. He would have to go down, too. He could not dive from above as I pulled up from below, because gravity would make his turn like the bottom of an egg while mine would be the top of the egg. When he did not match my dive, he could not recover the position.
We had better aerial combat tactics training in the F-106 than the F-100 pilots had. However, the F-106 didn't have a gun until about four years later.
Fighting in 3 dimensions takes a specially trained mind!!! Most folks spend their lives in 2d, and you exposed his weakness ;-) I've been flying for years and I still can't wrap my mind around it ;-) Well done sir :-)
One of the lessons taught in Aerial Combat Tactics (ACT) is "GO VERTICAL". Most people think on the horizontal plane, and until we got powerful engines we couldn't do much in the vertical plane. When you go vertical, you enter the "energy maneuverability egg" where you can turn tighter at the top of the egg than at the bottom. Zoom up, go inverted, and pull down on your target.
Gravity is ALWAYS there, and acts in many ways. The "Energy Maneuverability Egg" is like flying inside an egg sitting on its fatter end. As you go up, you slow down, which enables you to turn more sharply and increases your potential energy that you can recover by going down. At the top of the egg, you can roll inverted and go to a near zero-G situation where your airplane wings do not stall because there is no need to have lift. You can hang there, inverted, and then dive suddenly in almost any direction, tight turns being possible at low speed. As you go down, you increase speed as you convert potential energy to speed. You're diving toward the ground, so have to pull out. Now you're at the bottom of the egg with lots of speed but your turn radius is very large. If you fly around the middle of the egg, you have none of these effects. If your enemy is turning horizontal, and you have speed, pull up into the egg and turn down on him, turning more sharply than he can. If you have low energy, you can dive down into the egg to get the energy to cut across his turn and come up from below him. Your engine performs better at high subsonic speeds because the air forced into the intakes makes the engine more efficient. Your wings give more lift at higher speeds, but your turn radius increases by the square of your speed and becomes wider as you go faster, even as you pull more Gs. You have to play all these things to the situation that you see. The guy who stays horizontal will lose.
It sometimes happens to people who initiate competition to be beaten even though they expected their victory. I have learned something useful for me listening the stories you have told, even though I have never exposed to an aircraft.
I love these stories; there's a whole lot of US history from that era that doesn't get much attention because it wasn't direct combat. Bruce, I bet you'd have loved to take your F-106 in against those MiGs.
This quarantine might help me make more videos. I am learning to make green screen videos from my iPhone and iMovie. I’m thinking of new subjects which I could use with green screen technology. I’m thinking of an F-106 intercept, focusing on the radar scope, different possible tactics and even weapons selection. Such a video would be complex and half an hour long. Would anyone watch?
I had to come here because I'm in the middle of reading _Boyd the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War_ and now I'm wondering if either Major Gordon or his instructor had read Capt. Boyd's book. Boyd's _Aerial Attack Study_ was a game-changer that became the USAF official aerial tactics manual in 1960.
Hs Hs Yes, I have read the Boyd book and have a copy in my library. Yes, my decision to "go vertical" in the attack was directly a result of the theories of Energy Maneuverability, although I have heard that Boyd was only one of many who developed the Energy Maneuverability concept. However, "30-second Boyd' favorite maneuver was probably what I called the "Rudder Reversal" which I learned in the F-106 and which nearly killed me using it in the F-100. See my video "Rudder Reversal" on the subject.
I don't know that I would quickly respond to this the right way... Would probably also try and keep my altitude. Then realize I was in trouble and attempt to get to the deck and out-turn the guy somehow... A bad outcome regardless, since we'd be in identical planes. Great story, thank you for sharing.
Isaac Arnold - you are correct. MiGs didn't come into South Vietnam. They didn't have the range, and they didn't have radar or radar coverage, so whey would have been easily killed by our defenses. When American fighters went north, they had aerial refueling support. Their MiGs didn't have aerial refueling capability and they didn't have any tankers. They went into northern Laos on a couple of occasions, but went home quickly without achieving anything. BTW, the MiGs didn't use missiles. I'm not sure why, but I've heard that their ATOLL missile was very unreliable.
Awesome work Sir, that’s amazing, can’t imagine the training, the work and the dedication for God, Honor and Country you and your fellow Airmen put in. Never Forget
I watched it again -- it brings back memories! There was another engagement that I had with the same instructor, which I didn't describe because the video would get too long. The second one ended when I was on his tail and he dove to escape, but went below our safety altitude and I called the fight off for safety reasons. I had another unofficial dogfight while in Vietnam (purely against regulations, as we were armed and had not pre-briefed it). That is described in my video on "Rudder Reversal".
Hello Mr Gordon, nice to speak to you again! I have come in contact with a recently retired US Navy fighter pilot Vincent "Jell-O" Aiello who is the host of the Fighter Pilot Podcast (he's also on Twitter, Facebook and RUclips). It would be great to introduce you to him and vice versa, discuss tactical military aviation and maybe one day even to hear you as a guest on his podcast if you're interested of course. Keep up the informative and entertaining videos! -Everythingman
The F-100 was bigger, heavier, and more powerful than the F-86, but less maneuverable. The F-100 was able to carry more bombs and, with 4 20-mm cannons, it was better at ground attack than the F-86 with 6 .50 cal (12.7 mm) guns. While the F-86 was an air-to-air fighter with limited ground attack capability, the F-100 was best for ground attack. During the Vietnam war, one MiG-21 may have crashed when it followed an F-100 into a high-speed dive close to the ground. The MiG-21 had poor handling characteristics at very high speeds and would have had trouble pulling out of the dive. The F-100 had better high-speed handling and the pilot reported that, after barely pulling out above the ground, he never saw the MiG-21 again, and North Vietnam later reported one MiG-21 lost that day. While the F-86 was a great air-to-air fighter, the F-100 was not. I flew both the F-86 and the F-100 and wouldn't want to put the F-100 against the F-86 in a dogfight.
for fun -- DRFM, frequency hopping, and home on jam are all ECCM techniques, so your question is a bit distorted. It's rather like asking if jamming is good against jamming. No, you would not use HOJ against frequency hopping. For example: the F-106 used frequency hopping in our primary radar to avoid jamming. The enemy would employ noise jamming against our frequency hopping, and we could then use home-on-jam (HOJ) to use his jamming as a beacon that showed us where he is. HOJ homes in on the target, so you switch on HOJ, put him on your nose, and go fast and soon you're run into him!
@@spiritofattack but, is HOJ accurate than radar lock? And if enemy employs intermittent jamming instead of continuous then is HOJ still effective?? My another question is, how effective are low frequency Radars (VHF and UHF) in detecting stealth fighters?? Here's link to Russian NEBO-M radars ruclips.net/video/sY4nzYTyJoA/видео.html
and if F35 gets its target information from AWACS and if the enemy targets AWACS plane, will F35 still fly with it's radar switched off?? Or use LPI mode??
@@forfun5238 Enemy fighters are very unlikely to detect the F-35 low probability of intercept radar. LPI radars are dammed difficult to detect, and such detection would require a sophisticated system not likely to be on a fighter. A ground station may be listening for the LPI radar and could warn their fighter of the approach of an F-35, so I assume the F-35 would fly with radar off until within range to turn on its radar and launch missiles against whoever was attacking the AWACS. The attacking fighter would probably be killed before he knew he was under attack.
memonk11 - The F-100 was not a good air to air fighter. It was a good attack aircraft, with four 20mm cannons and a good load of bombs. It was good for close support of our troops. It was not sophisticated, and to hit our targets accurately we had to fly very low. Flying low over enemy troops is dangerous, and we lost 186 F-100s shot down by ground fire in the Vietnam War. I was never hit in my 132 missions, but two of my friends were killed. It was the best aircraft for us to use at the time, but I was very glad to see the new smart weapons which we could fire from farther away! I don't want to get down low, near enemy troops, so I don't agree with people who want the A-10 because it goes low and slow. Every year, ground troops get better weapons and flying low gets more dangerous.
There were many people who did more than I did. They just did not write their stories down! Those veterans who are still out there should publish their stories before they are lost to history!
It was mentioned in Soviet sources that f 100 super sabres were mostly delivering napalm tank to enemy positions. Now listening to you sir, i am surprised of hearing about 4 cannons, bombs and fuel tanks. I expected f 100 was mainly for ground target eliminate not combat with migs etc.
You are correct. The F-100 used napalm for close contact because there was not so much shrapnel which could hit our own troops some distance away. Napalm was good against attacking troops, which might be in small ravines or ditches -- where they would be protected from shrapnel. Cannons were good against troops, too. Bombs were best against established positions, like bunkers in the hills, and against vehicles. We used whatever was most effective for the target we were after. The F-100 always carried external fuel tanks because the targets were usually over 100 miles (160 km) from our base. The F-100 could carry bombs AND external fuel tanks, while the MiGs could not effectively carry both. We also had aerial refueling to hit some targets farther away.
I've heard from quite a few people that the F-106 was the best ACM fighter we had at the time. Even better than the MiG-21. It was just saddled with junk missiles and (for many years) no gun.
GoSlash27 - the AIM-4 F and G missiles were far better than the reputation of the earlier version with the F-4. The F-4 was the problem, not the missiles. My experience with the missiles was that they were excellent! The gun was a good addition but, as you say, it came late. The MA-1 computer in the F-106 was designed to work with the missiles and we never had the problems reported with the F-4.
Bruce so you had only several hours of total stick time on the F-100 when you went up against the instructor? I realize you rate the 106 as the best aircraft you flew, but did you think the F 100 was a good aircraft? It was about the end of its service life
Theodore Rinehart - Yes, I had only a few hours of F-100 stick time when I entered aerial combat tactics. The F-100 was dangerous - 889 F-100s were lost in accidents between its introduction in 1959 and retirement in 1971. That's a shocking record! The F-100 had "adverse yaw" that's difficult to describe -- but, under high G loads, if you put in RIGHT aileron it would snap to the LEFT! It had those four 20mm guns which were awesome, but we had to get down low and close to hit the targets. Going low puts you in range of light anti-aircraft and even rifle fire, and we were going low over enemy troops who had lot of guns. 186 F-100s were shot down in Vietnam by ground fire and another 45 were lost to accidents. Compare that to the F-35 where we have lost only two, and those were before takeoff so the pilots survived and most of the equipment was saved as spares for other aircraft. No, the F-100 was not a "great aircraft", but it had guns and bombs and it got the job done. Maybe it was "good".
Bruce thanks for the reply, that's an incredible statistic, and probably half perished. I have a question hope you can answer, when I was stationed at Griffiss, I remember they qualified rails with a WISM,? how does that actually work?
Theodore Rinehart - At Griffiss, you were probably working on the F-106, which qualified rails with the WSEM (Weapon System Evaluation Missile), a blue "missile" on the rails which recorded all the missile preparation and fire signals. The F-100 had no such thing, as there was almost no missile preparation for the Sidewinder. The Sidewinder gave us a tone in the headset if we had it selected; we fired when we thought it was a good time to shoot. Very simple - but our Sidewinder had many shortcomings and had only about a 17% PK in Vietnam. It had an uncooled seeker head, so it saw lots of natural IR sources (like the bright edges of clouds) which the F-106 AIM-4G did no see. The AIM-4G would not launch if it was not likely to hit the target. The Sidewinder was carried externally, buffeted by the weather, while the AIM-4G was carried internally. The AIM-4G seeker was pointed at the target by the MA-1 system even before being extended into the airstream, so it was looking right at the target. The Sidewinder was slaved directly ahead, so the pilot had to point his aircraft at the enemy directly before firing. The AIM-4G was much more advanced than the Sidewinder, so it needed the WSEM to check out all the signals during actual flight conditions. The Sidewinder was so simple that I think it was only ground checked. BTW, the AIM-4 that the F-4s used in Vietnam was NOT the same missile version as used by the F-106, and was a major cause of F-4 problems with the missile. The F-4's lack of a central computer system was also a major cause of their failure with the AIM-4.
I am prior service US Army Res. MOS 13A. Field Artillery comm officer, with fire suppourt (Mech) specilization. Now us FIST redlegs and 13F FO's think are tough. After all we have to hump same gear as 11B and 11C plus our eqp. However, IMHO, I am certain this former officer could kick my ass, make lick shine his boots, then drag my ass to O'Club for drinks, and make me happy to pay for em.
I take my salute you guys who fought on the ground in miserable conditions! I always went back to the base, to a dinner at the Club and then to a dry bed for the night. You had it rough!
@@spiritofattack Not really. Not if one knows how to ehhem... cheat.... no correction, work the system. In field, MRE parts and poggeybait is like currency. In BV, be friendly with medics. Then you could use their medevac humvee racks to sleep. Dry and inside. Cool, no. 'Authorized', eff no. Will you have to stand tall before The Man, only if you miss standto, guard duty, or movement. In Army, ground pound units, everybody stands guard. From PFC to O-6. Well sometimes not O-6. But then we had 1 Star who was prior E and had all his officers, including himself pull guard duty. But then I only served in peacetime in 1990's after DS, and before 9/11. Never deployed. Some hero I turned out to be. But three weeks at NTC at Ft. Irwin, among scorpions and snakes, still sucked for everybody. I saw no combat. Never fired shot in anger. But was shot at , twice, by our own guys at Ft. Sill. Both times with 155mm HE PD. Both accidental. Being on receiving end of 155mm is not fun, but its not PTSD inducing either. Maybe I was not shot at enough. Had to give a report , and interviewed by Ft. Sill Range Safety OIC, NCOIS, and Army CID. Why involve CID for firing incident, where worst that happened is a headache and ear ringing? No blood was spilled, no one sent to base hospital. Not that big of a deal. To me. To Army, a range firing incident is a big deal. Everybody got NDSM, except those of us within 400meters of PD, I was 220, got commendation write-up. Supposed to add to your promotion board points. Didn't seem to help me at all. I wonder what happened to pilot in training, whose little blue popper sailed outside of range impact area. I suppose there are endless Air Force investigations. I swear those little blue dust poppers are ADORABLE. I wanted one , like a teddy bear, to sleep with like Radar on MASH. But, it seems those were 'controlled' item. Ft. Sill was popular with Air Guard A-10A and F-16C Block early Guard pilots, and JTACs, as it allowed them to practice with maneuver units and field artillery in coordinated fire suppourt , with FIST and JTAC, using green banded munitions. Blue poopers, according to A-10A pilots, did not give realistic 'bounce' to aircraft on release. A-10A guys described real ordinance release, Mk-82LD , as 'thunk and bounce'. Little blues did not have same feel. Why that matters I do not know. Its a pilot thing. in USAF Res. and Guard Squadrons assigned CAS mission, usually with A-10A (now C), F-16C Block 30/40, is where one would find USAF's most aggressive pilots with spirit of attack. Well according to them anyway. Strike crews fly into teeth of air defense, release munitions, then leave on afterburner. CAS pilots have to stick around until close to bingo, or 'ordinance expended', or JTAC thanks them for their service with EOM. Then there is these Weasel guys, who don't just fly into teeth of enemy ADA. They fly down the throat of fire breathing dragon to rip the beating radar emitting heart out of ADA. One of my position papers, that all officers are required to write, was titled; "SEAD is everybody's business". My take is that we are so reliant on CAS work, and interdiction /counter battery fire, from aviation, that enemy air defense is our business. If we have opportunity to kill ADA, we take it. No questions asked, no excuses, no mercy.
@@dkoz8321 Wow! So many acronyms! "I wonder what happened to pilot in training, whose little blue popper sailed outside of range impact area." I think you were referring to the BLU-33 little practice bomb with a smoke charge in it. I might have been the pilot in training whose BLU-33 sailed outside the range impact area. I had just come from the F-106, where the button on the left side of the stick was the radio button. On the F-100, that was the BOMB RELEASE button. We were carrying an number BLU-33s to make passion on the range near Luke AFB, Arizona. I made my dive on target, released one BLU-33, and pulled up. I wanted to make the radio call "OFF TARGET", so I pressed the button to talk! Instead of the radio, I heard a little electrical "click" as another BLU-33 released. At that moment, I was going fast, with my nose up in about a 45 degree climb. I knew the BLU-33 would go a long way, and I was pointed at Mexico! I didn't report it. I pretended that the bomb had just dropped by itself somewhere on the range. There were no questions.
@@spiritofattack Amazing that there were no questions. Had it been me, I would have reported it, and there would have been an investigation, and I would have been reprimanded or counseled, and miss next promotion board. I imagine that on ramp , after doing pre-flight, you sign for aircraft and loaded munitions. So there is a paper record of an aircraft departing with # pounds of fuel, # of stores. There was a record of radio transmission, and record of weapon releases, and record of range impacts, in the debrief. Somewhere along the line , an crew chief, or a squadron/ wing training officer would find a mismatch. Between number of weapon releases , weapon impacts, and weapon bring back. Perhaps BDU-33 were not so sensitive an item that every one had to be accounted for. In 1993-1995, when I was on Active , Army was very strict. Every munition, every fuse had to be signed for, used, return those left unused, and accounted for. Not doing so , constituted a range safety violation, and possible violation of regulations regarding munitions security. Big deals in Army.
Yes and no... North Korea captured the USS Pueblo in January 1968. I got involved when North Korea struck again, shooting down a USAF EC-121 recon plane in April 1969. I was with F-106 squadrons which were deployed to Osan Air base to provide fighter cover as EC-121s continued their recon patrols. I was one of four F-106s which nearly engaged 20 North Korean MiGs off the east coast of North Korea, near Wonson. See my video "North Korean MiGs": ruclips.net/video/ILYAnIv4a_M/видео.html
Losing sight of your opponent is dangerous - you risk a mid-air collision! "A mid-air collision could ruin your whole day", we joked. My "Rudder Reversal" and "Korean War F-86 vs MiG-15" videos have examples of losing sight of the enemy - those are great videos - view them!
Yes, I was an instructor in the F-106 at the Squadron level. I taught radar, instruments, and aerial combat tactics. I was also a T-33 instructor. I was a Functional Check Flight (FCF) pilot to test planes after major maintenance or modifications.
I have heard about aerial clash of mig 21 and f 4. Mig 21 has launched both missiles and fired a burst of cannon when it jammed. After having discard all its ordnance, russian pilot ram his mig21 against f4. He perished, but iranians ejected with no harm. Russian pilot was a hero, but migs ordnance served badly.
I had not heard of that clash. Fighters rarely ram another fighter, but a mid-air collision in a dogfight is very possible. I have heard that Russian missiles were even more unreliable than American missiles. It took a few wars to get the engineers to improve the reliability of missiles, and I think they are much more reliable now.
@@spiritofattack ruclips.net/video/x1llZeHxSk8/видео.html this clash took place in Georgian ssr airspace, mig 21 launched from Vaziani AFB, the landscape of that place is very plain with smoorh hills.
@@spiritofattack ruclips.net/video/HLC_3k1K-nA/видео.html it is another video of ram performed in 1981 with su 15. He rammed c 130 with a fighter in 1981.
@@user-dy5bz1cw7c I cannot understand the Russian language, so I could see no reason for ramming a defenseless plane. The video did not show a C-130. Why would he ram a civilian aircraft and kill all those people on board? It looks like he got medals for murder!
I was in the Air Guard in the late 1970's doing avionics maintenance on F-100's. I got two rides in the back seat of an F-100F. On the second ride we were practicing dogfighting against an F-15. The pilot in my airplane was a colonel who had fought in Korea and Vietnam. The F-15 pilot was a young lieutenant just out of flight school. The colonel got behind the F-15 and flew the F-100 right up behind it and shot it down. After the kill the F-15 pilot still didn't know we were there until his wing man told him.
Thank you for your service Bruce, my Dad flew the Hun in Vietnam from 67-69, shot down in August of 68, but got out to fly again. He also flew 2 missions with the Misty's before he came back to the FWS at Nellis. Nice Video
I salute your father's service! Shot down, but got out to fly again! Wow! Flying with Misty FACs! Did he write down his stories?
Yes, Lots of great stories. Dad passed away last year, but we are writing a book about his life & 20+ years in the Air Force
@@stewscuda - I'm glad you're writing a book about him. Keep in mind your audience as you write -- is it for family records, or for sale to the public? That change how you write the book.
Just for family, thank you for the concerns. Chuck Yeager was the guest speaker at my Dads Graduation, he flew right up to the stage in a F-100, my Dad fell in love with the Hun at that moment
That will have to count as one of the best exam results I have ever heard.
Did you ever meet the instructor again subsequently?
No, I never met the instructor again - but I'm still laughing over it! I have often thought of his best response to my diving down at the start of the engagement. He would have to go down, too. He could not dive from above as I pulled up from below, because gravity would make his turn like the bottom of an egg while mine would be the top of the egg. When he did not match my dive, he could not recover the position.
working hard is good, working smart is better, bet he didn't mess with 106 pilots after that reality check.
Major Gordon... you are a rascal! Probably the last time that guy called out a 106 instructor, or maybe even any 106 pilot period!
We had better aerial combat tactics training in the F-106 than the F-100 pilots had. However, the F-106 didn't have a gun until about four years later.
Gordon; I love your stories! thanks for sharing. Greetings from Uruguay.
Love your site and your flying stories!
Fighting in 3 dimensions takes a specially trained mind!!! Most folks spend their lives in 2d, and you exposed his weakness ;-)
I've been flying for years and I still can't wrap my mind around it ;-)
Well done sir :-)
One of the lessons taught in Aerial Combat Tactics (ACT) is "GO VERTICAL". Most people think on the horizontal plane, and until we got powerful engines we couldn't do much in the vertical plane. When you go vertical, you enter the "energy maneuverability egg" where you can turn tighter at the top of the egg than at the bottom. Zoom up, go inverted, and pull down on your target.
Is that because the force of Gravity can augment your pitch rate when inverted in a lower specific energy state?
Gravity is ALWAYS there, and acts in many ways. The "Energy Maneuverability Egg" is like flying inside an egg sitting on its fatter end. As you go up, you slow down, which enables you to turn more sharply and increases your potential energy that you can recover by going down. At the top of the egg, you can roll inverted and go to a near zero-G situation where your airplane wings do not stall because there is no need to have lift. You can hang there, inverted, and then dive suddenly in almost any direction, tight turns being possible at low speed. As you go down, you increase speed as you convert potential energy to speed. You're diving toward the ground, so have to pull out. Now you're at the bottom of the egg with lots of speed but your turn radius is very large. If you fly around the middle of the egg, you have none of these effects. If your enemy is turning horizontal, and you have speed, pull up into the egg and turn down on him, turning more sharply than he can. If you have low energy, you can dive down into the egg to get the energy to cut across his turn and come up from below him. Your engine performs better at high subsonic speeds because the air forced into the intakes makes the engine more efficient. Your wings give more lift at higher speeds, but your turn radius increases by the square of your speed and becomes wider as you go faster, even as you pull more Gs. You have to play all these things to the situation that you see. The guy who stays horizontal will lose.
@@spiritofattack ,
How many total flight hours did you have in your USAF career? Besides the F-100, F-102 and F-106 what other aircraft did you fly?
@@spiritofattack Awesome description. Thanks!
It sometimes happens to people who initiate competition to be beaten even though they expected their victory. I have learned something useful for me listening the stories you have told, even though I have never exposed to an aircraft.
Thank you so much for your service sir!
I love these stories; there's a whole lot of US history from that era that doesn't get much attention because it wasn't direct combat. Bruce, I bet you'd have loved to take your F-106 in against those MiGs.
Helium Road I way had them and I'll be taking that comment down now
#Helium Road. - I nearly got my chance off the coast of North Korea in 1969. See my video on “North Korean MIGs”. Dammed close - but THEY turned back!
@@spiritofattack I saw that vid Bruce, love the stories! Good to see you posting here with all this quarantine craziness going on, stay safe.
This quarantine might help me make more videos. I am learning to make green screen videos from my iPhone and iMovie. I’m thinking of new subjects which I could use with green screen technology. I’m thinking of an F-106 intercept, focusing on the radar scope, different possible tactics and even weapons selection. Such a video would be complex and half an hour long. Would anyone watch?
@@spiritofattack Sign me up.
Ah, I'm enjoying your stories, but this has to be one of my favorites.
🤩😎👊
I Love listening to your exploits and historical information Sir !! SSgt, Semper Fi
Awesome example of the real dog fight! Nice!
Great story! I’ve flown ASEL and gliders. I can hardly imagine combat flying, but it’s always fun to hangar fly.
Outstanding! I love the last sentence.
Can't wait to read your book when I get back from my Gap year!
Thank you for your servise good sir. You are an absolute inspration.
Great video Sir!
I had to come here because I'm in the middle of reading _Boyd the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War_ and now I'm wondering if either Major Gordon or his instructor had read Capt. Boyd's book. Boyd's _Aerial Attack Study_ was a game-changer that became the USAF official aerial tactics manual in 1960.
Hs Hs Yes, I have read the Boyd book and have a copy in my library. Yes, my decision to "go vertical" in the attack was directly a result of the theories of Energy Maneuverability, although I have heard that Boyd was only one of many who developed the Energy Maneuverability concept. However, "30-second Boyd' favorite maneuver was probably what I called the "Rudder Reversal" which I learned in the F-106 and which nearly killed me using it in the F-100. See my video "Rudder Reversal" on the subject.
Awesome story!
I don't know that I would quickly respond to this the right way... Would probably also try and keep my altitude. Then realize I was in trouble and attempt to get to the deck and out-turn the guy somehow... A bad outcome regardless, since we'd be in identical planes. Great story, thank you for sharing.
That's great! I notice there were no sidewinders on the F-100 in your photo. I suppose you were flying around the south & didn't anticipate MiGs?
Isaac Arnold - you are correct. MiGs didn't come into South Vietnam. They didn't have the range, and they didn't have radar or radar coverage, so whey would have been easily killed by our defenses. When American fighters went north, they had aerial refueling support. Their MiGs didn't have aerial refueling capability and they didn't have any tankers. They went into northern Laos on a couple of occasions, but went home quickly without achieving anything. BTW, the MiGs didn't use missiles. I'm not sure why, but I've heard that their ATOLL missile was very unreliable.
Awesome story.
Awesome work Sir, that’s amazing, can’t imagine the training, the work and the dedication for God, Honor and Country you and your fellow Airmen put in. Never Forget
I watched it again -- it brings back memories! There was another engagement that I had with the same instructor, which I didn't describe because the video would get too long. The second one ended when I was on his tail and he dove to escape, but went below our safety altitude and I called the fight off for safety reasons. I had another unofficial dogfight while in Vietnam (purely against regulations, as we were armed and had not pre-briefed it). That is described in my video on "Rudder Reversal".
Hello Mr Gordon, nice to speak to you again! I have come in contact with a recently retired US Navy fighter pilot Vincent "Jell-O" Aiello who is the host of the Fighter Pilot Podcast (he's also on Twitter, Facebook and RUclips). It would be great to introduce you to him and vice versa, discuss tactical military aviation and maybe one day even to hear you as a guest on his podcast if you're interested of course. Keep up the informative and entertaining videos! -Everythingman
Everythingman - I have just sent an e-mail to Jell-O. You may have started something interesting!
Happy to introduce you two! I would love to take part in or ghost discussions or interviews with you guys in the future.
Mr Gordon i loved your story, how much was f100 than f86 if it was better of course.
The F-100 was bigger, heavier, and more powerful than the F-86, but less maneuverable. The F-100 was able to carry more bombs and, with 4 20-mm cannons, it was better at ground attack than the F-86 with 6 .50 cal (12.7 mm) guns. While the F-86 was an air-to-air fighter with limited ground attack capability, the F-100 was best for ground attack. During the Vietnam war, one MiG-21 may have crashed when it followed an F-100 into a high-speed dive close to the ground. The MiG-21 had poor handling characteristics at very high speeds and would have had trouble pulling out of the dive. The F-100 had better high-speed handling and the pilot reported that, after barely pulling out above the ground, he never saw the MiG-21 again, and North Vietnam later reported one MiG-21 lost that day. While the F-86 was a great air-to-air fighter, the F-100 was not. I flew both the F-86 and the F-100 and wouldn't want to put the F-100 against the F-86 in a dogfight.
Is HOJ (home on jam) effective against modern jamming techniques like DRFM, Frequency hopping ?
for fun -- DRFM, frequency hopping, and home on jam are all ECCM techniques, so your question is a bit distorted. It's rather like asking if jamming is good against jamming. No, you would not use HOJ against frequency hopping. For example: the F-106 used frequency hopping in our primary radar to avoid jamming. The enemy would employ noise jamming against our frequency hopping, and we could then use home-on-jam (HOJ) to use his jamming as a beacon that showed us where he is.
HOJ homes in on the target, so you switch on HOJ, put him on your nose, and go fast and soon you're run into him!
@@spiritofattack but, is HOJ accurate than radar lock? And if enemy employs intermittent jamming instead of continuous then is HOJ still effective??
My another question is, how effective are low frequency Radars (VHF and UHF) in detecting stealth fighters?? Here's link to Russian NEBO-M radars ruclips.net/video/sY4nzYTyJoA/видео.html
and if F35 gets its target information from AWACS and if the enemy targets AWACS plane, will F35 still fly with it's radar switched off?? Or use LPI mode??
@@forfun5238 Enemy fighters are very unlikely to detect the F-35 low probability of intercept radar. LPI radars are dammed difficult to detect, and such detection would require a sophisticated system not likely to be on a fighter. A ground station may be listening for the LPI radar and could warn their fighter of the approach of an F-35, so I assume the F-35 would fly with radar off until within range to turn on its radar and launch missiles against whoever was attacking the AWACS. The attacking fighter would probably be killed before he knew he was under attack.
That was a GREAT story! JA
Great video Bruce, I was expecting the instructor's response that you were performing an unsafe maneuver.
I didn't mention that I called off the fight as unsafe when HE went below the minimum safe altitude!
Ha ha! This is the like fight with Jester in the movie Top Gun, only the student was not only the victor but also the one not violating the rules!
Yeah that's exactly what I was thinking when I mentioned it lol
Great video! But what did you think about the F-100?
memonk11 - The F-100 was not a good air to air fighter. It was a good attack aircraft, with four 20mm cannons and a good load of bombs. It was good for close support of our troops. It was not sophisticated, and to hit our targets accurately we had to fly very low. Flying low over enemy troops is dangerous, and we lost 186 F-100s shot down by ground fire in the Vietnam War. I was never hit in my 132 missions, but two of my friends were killed. It was the best aircraft for us to use at the time, but I was very glad to see the new smart weapons which we could fire from farther away! I don't want to get down low, near enemy troops, so I don't agree with people who want the A-10 because it goes low and slow. Every year, ground troops get better weapons and flying low gets more dangerous.
Bruce Gordon Thank you so much for your insights, your service, and dear Lord 132?missions in a F-100?! Sir you are a true hero!
There were many people who did more than I did. They just did not write their stories down! Those veterans who are still out there should publish their stories before they are lost to history!
It was mentioned in Soviet sources that f 100 super sabres were mostly delivering napalm tank to enemy positions. Now listening to you sir, i am surprised of hearing about 4 cannons, bombs and fuel tanks. I expected f 100 was mainly for ground target eliminate not combat with migs etc.
You are correct. The F-100 used napalm for close contact because there was not so much shrapnel which could hit our own troops some distance away. Napalm was good against attacking troops, which might be in small ravines or ditches -- where they would be protected from shrapnel. Cannons were good against troops, too. Bombs were best against established positions, like bunkers in the hills, and against vehicles. We used whatever was most effective for the target we were after. The F-100 always carried external fuel tanks because the targets were usually over 100 miles (160 km) from our base.
The F-100 could carry bombs AND external fuel tanks, while the MiGs could not effectively carry both. We also had aerial refueling to hit some targets farther away.
I've heard from quite a few people that the F-106 was the best ACM fighter we had at the time. Even better than the MiG-21. It was just saddled with junk missiles and (for many years) no gun.
GoSlash27 - the AIM-4 F and G missiles were far better than the reputation of the earlier version with the F-4. The F-4 was the problem, not the missiles. My experience with the missiles was that they were excellent! The gun was a good addition but, as you say, it came late. The MA-1 computer in the F-106 was designed to work with the missiles and we never had the problems reported with the F-4.
Bruce so you had only several hours of total stick time on the F-100 when you went up against the instructor? I realize you rate the 106 as the best aircraft you flew, but did you think the F 100 was a good aircraft? It was about the end of its service life
Theodore Rinehart - Yes, I had only a few hours of F-100 stick time when I entered aerial combat tactics. The F-100 was dangerous - 889 F-100s were lost in accidents between its introduction in 1959 and retirement in 1971. That's a shocking record! The F-100 had "adverse yaw" that's difficult to describe -- but, under high G loads, if you put in RIGHT aileron it would snap to the LEFT! It had those four 20mm guns which were awesome, but we had to get down low and close to hit the targets. Going low puts you in range of light anti-aircraft and even rifle fire, and we were going low over enemy troops who had lot of guns. 186 F-100s were shot down in Vietnam by ground fire and another 45 were lost to accidents. Compare that to the F-35 where we have lost only two, and those were before takeoff so the pilots survived and most of the equipment was saved as spares for other aircraft. No, the F-100 was not a "great aircraft", but it had guns and bombs and it got the job done. Maybe it was "good".
Bruce thanks for the reply, that's an incredible statistic, and probably half perished. I have a question hope you can answer, when I was stationed at Griffiss, I remember they qualified rails with a WISM,? how does that actually work?
Bruce, I was at Griffiss 81-85, F-106 Squadron, AGE
Theodore Rinehart - At Griffiss, you were probably working on the F-106, which qualified rails with the WSEM (Weapon System Evaluation Missile), a blue "missile" on the rails which recorded all the missile preparation and fire signals. The F-100 had no such thing, as there was almost no missile preparation for the Sidewinder. The Sidewinder gave us a tone in the headset if we had it selected; we fired when we thought it was a good time to shoot. Very simple - but our Sidewinder had many shortcomings and had only about a 17% PK in Vietnam. It had an uncooled seeker head, so it saw lots of natural IR sources (like the bright edges of clouds) which the F-106 AIM-4G did no see. The AIM-4G would not launch if it was not likely to hit the target. The Sidewinder was carried externally, buffeted by the weather, while the AIM-4G was carried internally. The AIM-4G seeker was pointed at the target by the MA-1 system even before being extended into the airstream, so it was looking right at the target. The Sidewinder was slaved directly ahead, so the pilot had to point his aircraft at the enemy directly before firing. The AIM-4G was much more advanced than the Sidewinder, so it needed the WSEM to check out all the signals during actual flight conditions. The Sidewinder was so simple that I think it was only ground checked. BTW, the AIM-4 that the F-4s used in Vietnam was NOT the same missile version as used by the F-106, and was a major cause of F-4 problems with the missile. The F-4's lack of a central computer system was also a major cause of their failure with the AIM-4.
I am prior service US Army Res. MOS 13A. Field Artillery comm officer, with fire suppourt (Mech) specilization. Now us FIST redlegs and 13F FO's think are tough. After all we have to hump same gear as 11B and 11C plus our eqp. However, IMHO, I am certain this former officer could kick my ass, make lick shine his boots, then drag my ass to O'Club for drinks, and make me happy to pay for em.
I take my salute you guys who fought on the ground in miserable conditions! I always went back to the base, to a dinner at the Club and then to a dry bed for the night. You had it rough!
@@spiritofattack Not really. Not if one knows how to ehhem... cheat.... no correction, work the system.
In field, MRE parts and poggeybait is like currency. In BV, be friendly with medics. Then you could use their medevac humvee racks to sleep. Dry and inside. Cool, no. 'Authorized', eff no. Will you have to stand tall before The Man, only if you miss standto, guard duty, or movement. In Army, ground pound units, everybody stands guard. From PFC to O-6. Well sometimes not O-6. But then we had 1 Star who was prior E and had all his officers, including himself pull guard duty. But then I only served in peacetime in 1990's after DS, and before 9/11. Never deployed. Some hero I turned out to be. But three weeks at NTC at Ft. Irwin, among scorpions and snakes, still sucked for everybody.
I saw no combat. Never fired shot in anger. But was shot at , twice, by our own guys at Ft. Sill. Both times with 155mm HE PD. Both accidental. Being on receiving end of 155mm is not fun, but its not PTSD inducing either. Maybe I was not shot at enough. Had to give a report , and interviewed by Ft. Sill Range Safety OIC, NCOIS, and Army CID. Why involve CID for firing incident, where worst that happened is a headache and ear ringing? No blood was spilled, no one sent to base hospital. Not that big of a deal. To me. To Army, a range firing incident is a big deal.
Everybody got NDSM, except those of us within 400meters of PD, I was 220, got commendation write-up. Supposed to add to your promotion board points. Didn't seem to help me at all.
I wonder what happened to pilot in training, whose little blue popper sailed outside of range impact area. I suppose there are endless Air Force investigations. I swear those little blue dust poppers are ADORABLE. I wanted one , like a teddy bear, to sleep with like Radar on MASH. But, it seems those were 'controlled' item. Ft. Sill was popular with Air Guard A-10A and F-16C Block early Guard pilots, and JTACs, as it allowed them to practice with maneuver units and field artillery in coordinated fire suppourt , with FIST and JTAC, using green banded munitions. Blue poopers, according to A-10A pilots, did not give realistic 'bounce' to aircraft on release. A-10A guys described real ordinance release, Mk-82LD , as 'thunk and bounce'. Little blues did not have same feel. Why that matters I do not know. Its a pilot thing.
in USAF Res. and Guard Squadrons assigned CAS mission, usually with A-10A (now C), F-16C Block 30/40, is where one would find USAF's most aggressive pilots with spirit of attack. Well according to them anyway. Strike crews fly into teeth of air defense, release munitions, then leave on afterburner. CAS pilots have to stick around until close to bingo, or 'ordinance expended', or JTAC thanks them for their service with EOM.
Then there is these Weasel guys, who don't just fly into teeth of enemy ADA. They fly down the throat of fire breathing dragon to rip the beating radar emitting heart out of ADA.
One of my position papers, that all officers are required to write, was titled;
"SEAD is everybody's business". My take is that we are so reliant on CAS work, and interdiction /counter battery fire, from aviation, that enemy air defense is our business. If we have opportunity to kill ADA, we take it. No questions asked, no excuses, no mercy.
@@dkoz8321 Wow! So many acronyms! "I wonder what happened to pilot in training, whose little blue popper sailed outside of range impact area." I think you were referring to the BLU-33 little practice bomb with a smoke charge in it. I might have been the pilot in training whose BLU-33 sailed outside the range impact area.
I had just come from the F-106, where the button on the left side of the stick was the radio button. On the F-100, that was the BOMB RELEASE button. We were carrying an number BLU-33s to make passion on the range near Luke AFB, Arizona. I made my dive on target, released one BLU-33, and pulled up. I wanted to make the radio call "OFF TARGET", so I pressed the button to talk! Instead of the radio, I heard a little electrical "click" as another BLU-33 released. At that moment, I was going fast, with my nose up in about a 45 degree climb. I knew the BLU-33 would go a long way, and I was pointed at Mexico!
I didn't report it. I pretended that the bomb had just dropped by itself somewhere on the range. There were no questions.
@@spiritofattack Amazing that there were no questions. Had it been me, I would have reported it, and there would have been an investigation, and I would have been reprimanded or counseled, and miss next promotion board.
I imagine that on ramp , after doing pre-flight, you sign for aircraft and loaded munitions. So there is a paper record of an aircraft departing with # pounds of fuel, # of stores. There was a record of radio transmission, and record of weapon releases, and record of range impacts, in the debrief. Somewhere along the line , an crew chief, or a squadron/ wing training officer would find a mismatch. Between number of weapon releases , weapon impacts, and weapon bring back. Perhaps BDU-33 were not so sensitive an item that every one had to be accounted for.
In 1993-1995, when I was on Active , Army was very strict. Every munition, every fuse had to be signed for, used, return those left unused, and accounted for. Not doing so , constituted a range safety violation, and possible violation of regulations regarding munitions security. Big deals in Army.
Were you apart of the operation on alert with the F-100 squadrons to go to North Korea in 1968 when they captured a US naval ship crisis?
Yes and no... North Korea captured the USS Pueblo in January 1968. I got involved when North Korea struck again, shooting down a USAF EC-121 recon plane in April 1969. I was with F-106 squadrons which were deployed to Osan Air base to provide fighter cover as EC-121s continued their recon patrols. I was one of four F-106s which nearly engaged 20 North Korean MiGs off the east coast of North Korea, near Wonson. See my video "North Korean MiGs":
ruclips.net/video/ILYAnIv4a_M/видео.html
a bold gambit!
but what if you lost sight... ??
Losing sight of your opponent is dangerous - you risk a mid-air collision! "A mid-air collision could ruin your whole day", we joked. My "Rudder Reversal" and "Korean War F-86 vs MiG-15" videos have examples of losing sight of the enemy - those are great videos - view them!
yep! working my way through all of them : )
Did you ever became an instructor in the air force?
Yes, I was an instructor in the F-106 at the Squadron level. I taught radar, instruments, and aerial combat tactics. I was also a T-33 instructor. I was a Functional Check Flight (FCF) pilot to test planes after major maintenance or modifications.
Awesome 😎
I have heard about aerial clash of mig 21 and f 4. Mig 21 has launched both missiles and fired a burst of cannon when it jammed. After having discard all its ordnance, russian pilot ram his mig21 against f4. He perished, but iranians ejected with no harm. Russian pilot was a hero, but migs ordnance served badly.
I had not heard of that clash. Fighters rarely ram another fighter, but a mid-air collision in a dogfight is very possible. I have heard that Russian missiles were even more unreliable than American missiles. It took a few wars to get the engineers to improve the reliability of missiles, and I think they are much more reliable now.
@@spiritofattack
ruclips.net/video/x1llZeHxSk8/видео.html this clash took place in Georgian ssr airspace, mig 21 launched from Vaziani AFB, the landscape of that place is very plain with smoorh hills.
@@spiritofattack
ruclips.net/video/HLC_3k1K-nA/видео.html
it is another video of ram performed in 1981 with su 15. He rammed c 130 with a fighter in 1981.
@@user-dy5bz1cw7c I cannot understand the Russian language, so I could see no reason for ramming a defenseless plane. The video did not show a C-130. Why would he ram a civilian aircraft and kill all those people on board? It looks like he got medals for murder!
Yes, it is not a honour to eliminate defenseless plane. They say it was violation of a state border. The plain did not respond their requsts.
the HUN
fighter pilots are like italians. cut their hands off and they are speechless😊
BRUCE = 1
INSTRUCTOR = 0