I write some of these stories for history. I have always loved history. Now that I'm 86 years old, I realize that I have lived through a lot of history and feel a need to get it out in the public so the record is preserved in the digital format that the world now uses. For that reason, my book "THE SPIRIT OF ATTACK" is currently being translated into Russian. I'd like the Russian public to be aware of things like how close Russia and China came to war in 1969 - as described in my two videos "SOMETHING BIG #1 and "SOMETHING BIG #2". I've just put those two videos into a playlist. They're not the most viewed -- but are probably the most historically important of all my videos!
I enjoy all your shows. I was a mechanic on all the birds you flew in your career (with the exception of the trainers) Andrews AFB, 95th FIS and Suffolk County AFB. Keep 'em coming.
Good sir, thank you for your knowledge! I would love to hear more of this strategic and tactical thinking process, these videos are truly brilliant stuff!! I know a lot of folks who will use this information in simulators, and we love to have the edge on our friends!
I began to realize that I had memories of tactics and events that were not written into history and which should be recorded for posterity. I could go into detail on anti-chaff circuits, chaff corridors, deception jamming, etc., but I don't know anyone who is interested in such details.
I was stationed at Osan Air Base from 28 October 1974 to 22 November 1976, and later from 3 March 1980 to 3 March 1981. I maintained the Fire Control Radar and AIM-7 launch circuits on the F-4Es of the 36th Tactical Fighter Squadron. The jets stood Air Defense Alert, and when they scrambled the pucker factor went waaaay up! I was there when two Army Officers were chopped to death at the Joint Security Area in 1976. All the F-4s were loaded out with 3 AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, 4 AIM-9 Sidewinders, an ECM pod and 3 drops tanks. They flew escort for B-52s that flew to the DMZ to support Operation Paul Bunyan. Those were some INTERESTING times!
I wish my WW2 grandparents would have lived long enough to dump all their knowledge onto RUclips the way you have. Amazing legacy, Sir! 1 was attached to 99th as a signal man behind German lines laying hardline comms, the other was in control of magnetic degaussing for a troop transport going into mine-laid waters.
I've heard some stories of hardline comm lines -- by a guy who was captured by the North Koreans! He got separated from his unit and wandered in the dark behind North Korean lines until he tripped over a North Korean comm line. He shorted out the comm line so it wouldn't work, then lay down and went to sleep. He woke up in the morning with two North Koreans standing over him -- they were tracing their comm line to see what was wrong! He spent the rest of the war in a North Korean POW camp, but survived. I honor your grandparent who laid comm lines in WW II !
Loved the videos! I remember you bringing this up before, but could you talk a bit more about the AIM-4? When Phantoms shot the thing in Vietnam it did really badly, but you talk very fondly of it.
Matteo - yes, I had great faith in the AIM-4 and am convinced that it was the F-4, not the AIM-4, that was the problem. The F-4 didn't have the computers system to properly prepare the AIM-4 missile. I think the pilots totally misused the missile. Those of us who were brought up with Falcon missiles got above a 95% kill rate on realistic targets. Look at my video "MACE Kill" for a good story of a realistic target with AIM-4Gs which were right off the alert pads with no special checks at all. Dammed effective missiles!
@@TLTeo No, the targets did not maneuver at high-G. That's technically very hard to do. During the mid-1970's, I worked in the Drone SPO (System Program Office) trying to make realistic targets to shoot at. We wanted a supersonic target with a large afterburner, but such a target would be extremely expensive - in the million dollar range. Our biggest problem was that IR missiles home in on the hot afterburner plume, not on the cool aircraft. In a turning engagement, the IR missile can go right through the afterburner plume without hitting the aircraft. Hard turns in a drone were difficult to control and time correctly, so it was easier to just shoot with a higher crossing angle. We modified several fighters as drones, but that was not easy. The F-102 and F-106 made better drone targets because they already had good autopilots which would follow instructions from the ground. Their turns would be normal turns, not hard turns, and the cost of one such target for one shot was huge. My most realistic targets were the MACE missile and the BOMARC. The MACE was a real cruise missile, subsonic, and the BOMARC was high supersonic, Mach 2.5 at 60,000 feet. Killed both of them, each with AIM-4G IR missiles. I expect they're modifying F-16s as targets now, but I haven't heard anything about such a program.
marbleman52 Yes! I still remember so many experiences - many that are hard to put on paper or into a video. I remember my F-106 flying above 40,000 feet and the thrill of being King of the Mountain. All those planes flying beneath me went their way because I let them. I once flew alone with a live nuclear weapon. One man should never have such power! It’s like strapping a pistol on your hip and walking around. There’s something about it that makes a man feel really good!
@@spiritofattack Yes sir....whenever I walk around in the woods, I strap on my pistol and it most certainly gives me a feeling of control and a little bit of power....kinda like Elmer Fudd ..." Okay, you wascally wabbit, I've got you now..! " LOL..!! And oh yes, I was a Plane Captain for our ERA-3B Skywarrior planes ( B-66 for you A.F. guys ), and I took a great deal of pride and protectiveness of them. I would let the pilots and aircrew only "borrow" MY A-3's for a short while, and they better return her to me in good shape..!!
SDscOrch - I will improve the next presentation. I’ll try a color background instead of white. I was afraid to use colors with the green screen, but now I think I can do it.
My grandfather, Pavel Ivanovich Petrov, flew these strategic bombers about the same time period, he started in WW2 and kept flying till the sixties. I'm glad neither of you had to fly real combat missions against each other.
Anton Batura -- what planes did he fly? I don't think any of them had the range to reach the USA and return to Russia -- I heard they were supposed to continue south and land in Cuba. I don't think the TU-4 could have got through our defenses, and the TU-22 Blinder didn't have the range if it tried to go supersonic. The F-86D would have been against the TU-4, and the F-102 and F-106 against the TU-22.
@@spiritofattack he started in the WW2 bombers, like SB-2. Later it was the Tu-4 (B-29 copy), and then he moved on to the Tu-16. That is as far as I know, he passed away in 1992 and I don't remember all that much from his stories. They couldn't directly reach American airspace, but were training for strikes Europe. He also flew over the North Pole on at least one occasion. The 185th heavy bomber regiment with which he served later transitioned to the Tu-22M3 Backfires, but he wasn't flying at the time, as he was earlier grounded for medical reasons and never flew again.
@@antonbatura8385 Thanks -- the TU-16 Badger was probably the most common Russian bomber, although the TU-95 Bear was the one we saw most often because of its long range. Two of them came over Alaska once. See my video Facebook / Spirit of Attack / Russian bombers over Alaska. My first experience with Russian bombers actually over the USA. I think they were lost, but it sure got our attention!
@@spiritofattack well, Russia is getting uppity again, so I think modern day fighter pilots will be seeing a lot of the Bears and Blackjacks in the future. I live in Ukraine, unfortunately for political reasons my country was forced to dismantle its fleet of strategic bombers, which included the 95, 22M3 and the 160. In Poltava, where I live, which was the base of the 185th, we now have a museum where one can climb aboard a Bear and a Blackjack, which are in no flying condition, but are preserved as exhibits. Btw, Poltava is also somewhat famous as one of the bases of WW2 bombing raids by the US B-17s, which took off from Italy, struck Romanian oil fields and landed in Poltava, then repeated the flight back over Romania into Italy. In 1994 they celebrated the anniversary, with a few American guests, including a B-1B out of Ellsworth and a Buff from Barksdale. I got to see both planes up close that day. Quite an experience! Photos don't do the B-52 justice, you only really appreciate it's size when you see it. A few dozen miles from us is a fighter base with Flankers and Frogfoots, the 831st tactical air brigade. Those guys would be more your type of people, I suppose.
@@antonbatura8385 Very interesting, Anton. I wonder if the fall in the price of oil, which is so important to the Russian economy, and the COVID-19 pandemic, will stop the TU-160 upgrades. As I remember, Ukraine was a key place for electronics development for the USSR, and Russian electronic development must have suffered when Ukraine left the USSR. Your comments would be interesting...
Great video Bruce! I like what you did with the green screen. I think I prefer this style of video compared to the normal slide show type you usually do. It is much more engaging being able to see you tell the story, you're able to give a better visual of the situation you are describing by using your hands, and you can still have the information displayed behind you. Some interesting tactics you shared in this one, I'll have to try some of these techniques out in the combat flight simulators I play. Looking forward to your next video!
I really enjoyed this and other videos, i am a former intercept controller and worked my career in europe with F104. Would have loved controlling a setup like that... with starfighters you needed many more miles to turn, unless you turn vertical. Thank you sir, looked a lot like the tactics lesson i had in former times.
Excellent as always, Bruce! You've got experiences and stories that are impossible to match here on RUclips. Keep up the great work! Always looking forward to new videos!
The RC-121 and the EC-121 were similar -- I remember it as an RC-121 that got shot down, but Wikipedia says it was an EC-121. Do you know which is correct?
@@spiritofattack I did a Google search and everything that came up said EC-121. I downloaded a PDF file supposedly from the NSA, it says on April 15, 1969 a North Korean MiG 21shot down a U.S. Navy EC-121.
@@isaacarnold4635 Yes, I see the EC-121 also. When I was making the video, the words RC-121 came to me and I didn't want to start the video over. So far, I know of four errors -- I might have to re-do the whole video, but that's such a hard job I might not do it. I'll go on to the next video, the one on radar scope presentations. I make mistakes, but keep pressing on...
Was there a rivalry between Air Defense Command, Tactical Air Command and Strategic Air Command in those days? Looking at it from what I can Google it at least seems that way, with Curtis LeMay pushing for more funding towards strategic assets like nuclear bombers and neglecting tactical/air defense assets. As always it's great to hear your stories. Live in fame or go down in flame, nothing will stop the US Air Force!
Everythingman Yes, there was a rivalry - like between schools - friendly rivalry between pilots. At the Pentagon level there was always competition for limited money. We competed with the Army and Navy, too. That is natural and good. We were together against the Russians. We poked fun at fat bomber pilots and Army “grunts”. We had a great respect for the Navy, but their planes were ugly!
I assume the air battles in Vietnam involved more dogfighting because of the rules of engagement, Bruce? I think it was Randy Cunningham in a book where he discusses arriving at the battle area in his Navy F-4 and describes what he sees as looking "like a scene from the movie Dawn Patrol" except instead of biplanes it was jet fighters in a giant swirling furball. Would your encounter with the North Korean MiGs have been a beyond visual range attack?
Helium. - We would lock on beyond visual range but missile launch of our Falcon missiles would be within visual range. We could always abort at the last moment by just releasing the trigger. Even after launch we could abort the radar missiles by pressing a button to break radar lock.
Helium - Vietnam air battles were not for the F-106. The F-106 was a high altitude interceptor, while Vietnam air battles were usually at only half our altitude. I assume the MIGs would not even come up to fight the F-106. MIGs would not fight unless the battle was on their terms. We could have cruised over Vietnam all day and they probably wouldn’t have challenged us. MIGs liked to attack planes loaded with bombs, flying rather low. If we went down to their altitudes we would give up our advantage of long range radar because of ground clutter. In the Korean situation, the MIGs were coming out over water where there was no ground clutter and our radar would have been decisive.
@@RCAvhstape No, I didn't. I was flying in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and the MiGs never came south. The MiGs had very short ranges due to very little fuel -- they were point defense fighters, which is one reason they were so light. The USAF has always had to fly long range strikes, so USAF fighters always had a lot more fuel -- which also made us heavier...
Sir, it was priceless as ever, thank you. In another video you mentioned that with the F102 / F106 you were supposed to fire the missiles in pairs (one IR and one radar guided) to maximise the probability to hit the target but halving the number of shots; was it "compulsory" or could you choose to fire your missiles one by one?
You misunderstood my comment. Yes, we fired two missiles at a time, either the forward or aft bays (or both bays). IR missile were in the aft bay and radar missiles were in the forward bay. So, we fired them in pairs, but they were both EITHER radar or IR. We could not fire the missiles one by one (except that there was a brief (half second) delay between firings). The F-106 was designed to attack bombers, and two bombers was the most that anyone could imagine attacking. Combat against enemy fighters was not a design criteria. We would fire either two IR missiles OR two radar missiles, not one IR and one radar. The doors and rails were activated by stored compressed air, and we would run out of compressed air after two complete firing cycles.
@@spiritofattack I REALLY misunderstood your comment... I think I will need to look for a good monography on the F102/F106 to grasp those details that for you are obvious; I actually believed that the reason to fire two missiles at a time was to have two completely different guidance systems homing on the same target so that if one was fooled by some countermeasure the other one probably would have hit it, and I didn't imagine that you could open and close the weapons bay just two times. Thank you again for your answer and your patience.
@@nicolaandria522 IR and Radar missiles are needed for different scenarios. Why waste an IR missile on a front attack? Why waste a radar missile if you're attacking in a rear quarter attack? When my four F-106s nearly engaged 20 MiGs off the coast of North Korea in 1969, I planned to use my radar missiles on the front as we came to merge. Then I would go far out of sight (they couldn't turn around fast enough and I was faster than they were, anyway). I would use my radar to select a target that was going away from me, accelerate high supersonic, and come in fast on the tail of some unsuspecting MiG (ignoring the others) and get a second kill with IR missiles on the stern. I would get 2 MiGs and they didn't stand a chance! I would have made the missile selection part of my tactics.
Bruno - no, intercepts against the Blackbird were rare. Their missions were very expensive and they could not deviate to meet our needs. Their missions were usually secret so even finding out where they might be was difficult. I was in Michigan near Detroit, and the Blackbird was so fast that we had to get the SCRAMBLE order while they were over Idaho! We could have intercepted them if we were in the right spot at the right time.
@@VNAV_PTH I believe he achieved a radar lock-on, but he doesn't say he reached a firing solution. The Viggen was similar to the F-106 in many respects, but about five years newer. It seems the Swedes had more chances to intercept the SR-71 than Americans did!
Yeah, I think you're right. Oh, and the routes the SR-71 flew around Sweden seemed to be quite predictable, which most certainly would help getting a lock on in the first place. I wonder about what the SR-71 pilots were thinking once they noticed the Viggens were coming for the interception.
@@VNAV_PTH There is only one pilot in an SR-71, unless they are in formation, which seems unlikely. The back seater is a systems operator. And what makes you think they noticed the Viggens at all? The SR-71 has no radar, its not a fighter. The Viggen _claims_ he got radar lock, but thats probably all he got, and you can do that from dozens of miles away. Its the way BVR missiles work. Since they are Beyond Visual Range missiles, it stands to reason you cannot SEE something the radar can see at distance, and unless you have your own radar, you won't have a clue they are there. Of course the entire thing is based around a story a fighter pilot was telling about his exploits, so I dont really see any reason to believe it to start with. Fighter pilots are notorious for making up tall tales that make themselves look cool.
Thank You Mr. Gordon, Excellent video as usual. Why did you not kill the 2 MiGs that you discuss here? Would that be obviously too provocative? What was the US response to the downing of the slow mover, EC-121? If you ever have the opportunity, could you please discuss the clear view canopy mod and the 20 mm gatling gun installed on the Six? I have read that the Six sacrificed missiles due to the gun installation? I have also found that information about the retractable IRST in front of the cockpit of the Six to be quite scarce? Would you mind discussing this in a future video? Perhaps I have yet to find this topic in your many fine videos? I almost hate to ask, but in any of your “live” intercepts, such as “The Cold Scramble” south of Alaska, did you ever take live Genies aloft? Would this only be the case if an obvious large number of Soviet bombers were approaching North America? I am from western Canada, and our retired Voodoo crews are still tight lipped about ANYTHING to do with the Genie. Best Regards!
#Grim Reaper - 1. You asked why I didn't attack the MiGs that came toward our plane. Answer: They turned back to Wonson, and were no longer threatening our recon plane. I was one part of a flight of four, and I was not in command. Our mission was defensive. I would properly be court-martialed if I turned it into an offensive action, possibly causing a war with North Korea and causing thousands of deaths. It would have been utterly foolish, non-professional, and a violation of our oath to obey orders. 2. What was the US response to the downing of the slower-moving EC-121? Answer: As stated in the video, that was a decision by President Nixon. He really had three choices: go to war, pull back, or provide an escort. We did not retaliate against North Korea -- I was part of the escort for continued missions. 3. Could you please discuss the clear view canopy mod and the 20 mm gatling gun installed on the Six? I have read that the Six sacrificed missiles due to the gun installation? Answer: I never flew with the clear view canopy. It bulges out on the sides so the pilot can look behind his plane more easily, and does not have the 4" aluminum bar that went over our heads -- that could interfere with vision during a dogfight. It seems like the clear view canopy was a good idea, although our visibility was pretty good I have also found that information about the retractable IRST in front of the cockpit of the Six to be quite scarce? Would you mind discussing this in a future video? Perhaps I have yet to find this topic in your many fine videos? I almost hate to ask, but in any of your “live” intercepts, such as “The Cold Scramble” south of Alaska, did you ever take live Genies aloft? Would this only be the case if an obvious large number of Soviet bombers were approaching North America? Answer: I never flew with a live Genie, although I fired a training version once. I have pulled Alert with live Genies, but never was scrambled with a live Genie. Before I flew in the F-106, I flew in the F-102 in Alaska and we DID fly
No, I did not fire because they turned back to North Korea. I could have shot from above with no problem because we were over water and there was no ground clutter.
Do you have a certain place you'd like us to buy the book from? Or just find it on Amazon...id like to get a copy but also want to help you out also wish we had a audio version of YOU reading it to us 🇺🇸😉😄
Send $20 to Bruce Gordon, 105 Broadbill Ct., Georgetown KY 40324. Cash, check or PayPal. I mail you an autographed copy, taxes and postage paid in the USA. Send me your email address so I can clarify your address (I can’t read everyone’s writing) or let you know when the book is mailed.
I never thought of reading my book aloud and recording it! I would add a lot of extra detail and descriptions. Does anyone know if special procedures are needed? How would I sell that? Could I sell it through Amazon?
@@spiritofattack alrighty I'm going to do that! Thank you 😊 and yeah you should deff look into it because it would be like a long story your telling us instead of you like just reading a book...and then we can sort of reference stuff in the book while you are talking about it. I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard, kind of like audio books 🤔
@@starfighter1043 I expect that it isn't as easy as it seems. I may need professional guidance. It would be an audio book, so maybe I'll contact an audio book company.
Bruce, could you remind me, please what missile armament was on the F-102 in the begining, i mean before the Genie? I saw your comment about it but have lost it and can't to fint it again! Thank you!
The F-102 carried six FALCON missiles. We usually carried three radar and three infrared FALCONS. They were called Guided Aircraft Rockets (GAR-1 was radar, GAR-2 was infrared). Designation was changed to the AIM-4A and AIM-4B. The F-106 used an improved version, the AIM-4F and AIM-4G. We also carried the GAR-11 nuclear missile and the GAR-11A, its non-nuclear counterpart. I carried both the GAR-11 and GAR-11A while flying the F-102 in Alaska. The nuke on the GAR-11 was smaller than the nuke on the F-106's MB-1 rocket. The problems with handling any nuke made any nuke an extra problem and I much preferred the non-nuclear version, the GAR-11A (later the AIM-26A) which had a very sophisticated guidance system and about the same probability of kill as the nuclear version (in the 99% category). The F-102's version of the FALCON was carried by F-4s in Vietnam and got a bad reputation, that was NOT the same missile as carried by the F-106. I believe the failures of the AIM-4 in Vietnam was because the F-4 did not have the computer system to prepare the missiles properly, and the failures in Vietnam were due to manual preparation of the missiles for firing.
Interesting that you should pick that up. I was going on memory. I thought it was 2.75 inch. I went to Wikipedia and a source said it was 2.5 inch, so I used that. Maybe my memory was better than Wikipedia!
No, we didn't actually engage them. We got very close to it, though. There were twenty of them and four of us. They turned back. See my video "North Korean MIGs".
N6081 - I flew a T-34 about two years ago. It had a much larger engine than the ones I flew in primary training. I tried simple aerobatics, and was shocked to find that maneuvers, such as the aileron roll, which are very easy in any jet fighter, were impossible with the T-34 due to gyroscopic action of the propeller!
@pistonessssss No, the F-106 did not have look-down, shoot down radar - which means at low altitude. Of course we could shoot down if the target was not close to the ground where ground clutter is a real problem. We usually would fly BELOW the target so it would be against the sky. True look down requires pulse doppler radar.
pistonssssss Look-down shoot-down usually refers to the target being at a very low altitude - below 500 feet. If the target is at a normal altitude, above 5,000 feet, the F-106 would have no trouble locking on and shooting down. Draw a mental picture of the path of a radar pulse from the F-106 through the target to the ground - a long, sloping line down. If there are a few thousand feet between the target range and range to the ground, there would be a gap in radar return between the target and the ground. That gap lets the radar lock on. The lower the target, the less gap and the harder to lock on. Those MIGs were probably about 20,000 feet and the F-106 would have no trouble locking on and shooting down.
@pistonssssss The F-106 radar spun its radar feed to create a cone-shaped pattern. This made initial contact easier than with a single “pencil beam”. The spinning cone also was used for tracking after lock-on. Stopping the spin and using a pencil beam was good for long contacts where the angular effect of different target altitudes was less. At closer ranges the angular differences in various target altitudes is greater and the spinning cone improves radar contacts.
Priceless. This is extremely valuable for history.
I write some of these stories for history. I have always loved history. Now that I'm 86 years old, I realize that I have lived through a lot of history and feel a need to get it out in the public so the record is preserved in the digital format that the world now uses. For that reason, my book "THE SPIRIT OF ATTACK" is currently being translated into Russian. I'd like the Russian public to be aware of things like how close Russia and China came to war in 1969 - as described in my two videos "SOMETHING BIG #1 and "SOMETHING BIG #2". I've just put those two videos into a playlist. They're not the most viewed -- but are probably the most historically important of all my videos!
All the aircraft Factbooks and war story books leave out these tactical approaches I'd never come across. Thanks so much for the lesson.
Thank you,Mr.Gordon,for your precious, interesting and accreditate lessons and stories.respect from Italy.
Love hearing about all your experiences. Great videos.
Thanks - good words like that keep me working on new stories.
love your work!
I always watch - you always get an upvote from me :))
I enjoy all your shows. I was a mechanic on all the birds you flew in your career (with the exception of the trainers) Andrews AFB, 95th FIS and Suffolk County AFB. Keep 'em coming.
Charles Houser - Thanks for all your work maintaining our birds! I knew those bases and the 95th Squadron!
Good sir, thank you for your knowledge! I would love to hear more of this strategic and tactical thinking process, these videos are truly brilliant stuff!! I know a lot of folks who will use this information in simulators, and we love to have the edge on our friends!
I began to realize that I had memories of tactics and events that were not written into history and which should be recorded for posterity. I could go into detail on anti-chaff circuits, chaff corridors, deception jamming, etc., but I don't know anyone who is interested in such details.
@@spiritofattack yes please good sir
@@matka5130 Look at my video on ECM:
ruclips.net/video/XMfdKD6PBtQ/видео.html
Again thanks for sharing your experience in the F-102 and F-106.
I was stationed at Osan Air Base from 28 October 1974 to 22 November 1976, and later from 3 March 1980 to 3 March 1981. I maintained the Fire Control Radar and AIM-7 launch circuits on the F-4Es of the 36th Tactical Fighter Squadron. The jets stood Air Defense Alert, and when they scrambled the pucker factor went waaaay up! I was there when two Army Officers were chopped to death at the Joint Security Area in 1976. All the F-4s were loaded out with 3 AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, 4 AIM-9 Sidewinders, an ECM pod and 3 drops tanks. They flew escort for B-52s that flew to the DMZ to support Operation Paul Bunyan. Those were some INTERESTING times!
#Michael Betzer - What was Operation Paul Bunyan?
I wish my WW2 grandparents would have lived long enough to dump all their knowledge onto RUclips the way you have. Amazing legacy, Sir!
1 was attached to 99th as a signal man behind German lines laying hardline comms, the other was in control of magnetic degaussing for a troop transport going into mine-laid waters.
I've heard some stories of hardline comm lines -- by a guy who was captured by the North Koreans! He got separated from his unit and wandered in the dark behind North Korean lines until he tripped over a North Korean comm line. He shorted out the comm line so it wouldn't work, then lay down and went to sleep. He woke up in the morning with two North Koreans standing over him -- they were tracing their comm line to see what was wrong! He spent the rest of the war in a North Korean POW camp, but survived. I honor your grandparent who laid comm lines in WW II !
Just awesome. You need to get in contact with the Fighter Pilot Podcast and have them host you for an episode and talk about one of these birds!
Yes that would be very interesting for lot of Fighter Pilot Podacast listeners and bring more follower to Bruce!
Thank you sir! What a great video.
Also, the Blinder was the Tu-22, not 64. A minor point.
Enjoyed the tactics lecture and video production. Well done Mr. Gordon.
Loved the videos! I remember you bringing this up before, but could you talk a bit more about the AIM-4? When Phantoms shot the thing in Vietnam it did really badly, but you talk very fondly of it.
Matteo - yes, I had great faith in the AIM-4 and am convinced that it was the F-4, not the AIM-4, that was the problem. The F-4 didn't have the computers system to properly prepare the AIM-4 missile. I think the pilots totally misused the missile. Those of us who were brought up with Falcon missiles got above a 95% kill rate on realistic targets. Look at my video "MACE Kill" for a good story of a realistic target with AIM-4Gs which were right off the alert pads with no special checks at all. Dammed effective missiles!
@@spiritofattack that's very interesting! Did any of the targets you would fire on maneuver at high g like a fighter would?
@@TLTeo No, the targets did not maneuver at high-G. That's technically very hard to do. During the mid-1970's, I worked in the Drone SPO (System Program Office) trying to make realistic targets to shoot at. We wanted a supersonic target with a large afterburner, but such a target would be extremely expensive - in the million dollar range. Our biggest problem was that IR missiles home in on the hot afterburner plume, not on the cool aircraft. In a turning engagement, the IR missile can go right through the afterburner plume without hitting the aircraft. Hard turns in a drone were difficult to control and time correctly, so it was easier to just shoot with a higher crossing angle. We modified several fighters as drones, but that was not easy. The F-102 and F-106 made better drone targets because they already had good autopilots which would follow instructions from the ground. Their turns would be normal turns, not hard turns, and the cost of one such target for one shot was huge. My most realistic targets were the MACE missile and the BOMARC. The MACE was a real cruise missile, subsonic, and the BOMARC was high supersonic, Mach 2.5 at 60,000 feet. Killed both of them, each with AIM-4G IR missiles. I expect they're modifying F-16s as targets now, but I haven't heard anything about such a program.
Bruce, I could hear it in your voice that you still had the "Spirit of Attack" in you....once a fighter, always a fighter..!!
marbleman52 Yes! I still remember so many experiences - many that are hard to put on paper or into a video. I remember my F-106 flying above 40,000 feet and the thrill of being King of the Mountain. All those planes flying beneath me went their way because I let them. I once flew alone with a live nuclear weapon. One man should never have such power! It’s like strapping a pistol on your hip and walking around. There’s something about it that makes a man feel really good!
@@spiritofattack Yes sir....whenever I walk around in the woods, I strap on my pistol and it most certainly gives me a feeling of control and a little bit of power....kinda like Elmer Fudd ..." Okay, you wascally wabbit, I've got you now..! " LOL..!! And oh yes, I was a Plane Captain for our ERA-3B Skywarrior planes ( B-66 for you A.F. guys ), and I took a great deal of pride and protectiveness of them. I would let the pilots and aircrew only "borrow" MY A-3's for a short while, and they better return her to me in good shape..!!
@@marbleman52 Love it!
I like the new format
SDscOrch - I will improve the next presentation. I’ll try a color background instead of white. I was afraid to use colors with the green screen, but now I think I can do it.
My grandfather, Pavel Ivanovich Petrov, flew these strategic bombers about the same time period, he started in WW2 and kept flying till the sixties. I'm glad neither of you had to fly real combat missions against each other.
Anton Batura -- what planes did he fly? I don't think any of them had the range to reach the USA and return to Russia -- I heard they were supposed to continue south and land in Cuba. I don't think the TU-4 could have got through our defenses, and the TU-22 Blinder didn't have the range if it tried to go supersonic. The F-86D would have been against the TU-4, and the F-102 and F-106 against the TU-22.
@@spiritofattack he started in the WW2 bombers, like SB-2. Later it was the Tu-4 (B-29 copy), and then he moved on to the Tu-16. That is as far as I know, he passed away in 1992 and I don't remember all that much from his stories. They couldn't directly reach American airspace, but were training for strikes Europe. He also flew over the North Pole on at least one occasion. The 185th heavy bomber regiment with which he served later transitioned to the Tu-22M3 Backfires, but he wasn't flying at the time, as he was earlier grounded for medical reasons and never flew again.
@@antonbatura8385 Thanks -- the TU-16 Badger was probably the most common Russian bomber, although the TU-95 Bear was the one we saw most often because of its long range. Two of them came over Alaska once. See my video Facebook / Spirit of Attack / Russian bombers over Alaska. My first experience with Russian bombers actually over the USA. I think they were lost, but it sure got our attention!
@@spiritofattack well, Russia is getting uppity again, so I think modern day fighter pilots will be seeing a lot of the Bears and Blackjacks in the future. I live in Ukraine, unfortunately for political reasons my country was forced to dismantle its fleet of strategic bombers, which included the 95, 22M3 and the 160. In Poltava, where I live, which was the base of the 185th, we now have a museum where one can climb aboard a Bear and a Blackjack, which are in no flying condition, but are preserved as exhibits. Btw, Poltava is also somewhat famous as one of the bases of WW2 bombing raids by the US B-17s, which took off from Italy, struck Romanian oil fields and landed in Poltava, then repeated the flight back over Romania into Italy. In 1994 they celebrated the anniversary, with a few American guests, including a B-1B out of Ellsworth and a Buff from Barksdale. I got to see both planes up close that day. Quite an experience! Photos don't do the B-52 justice, you only really appreciate it's size when you see it.
A few dozen miles from us is a fighter base with Flankers and Frogfoots, the 831st tactical air brigade. Those guys would be more your type of people, I suppose.
@@antonbatura8385 Very interesting, Anton. I wonder if the fall in the price of oil, which is so important to the Russian economy, and the COVID-19 pandemic, will stop the TU-160 upgrades. As I remember, Ukraine was a key place for electronics development for the USSR, and Russian electronic development must have suffered when Ukraine left the USSR. Your comments would be interesting...
Thank you Bruce, I can´t get tire to hear you, awesome video.
Great video Bruce! I like what you did with the green screen. I think I prefer this style of video compared to the normal slide show type you usually do. It is much more engaging being able to see you tell the story, you're able to give a better visual of the situation you are describing by using your hands, and you can still have the information displayed behind you.
Some interesting tactics you shared in this one, I'll have to try some of these techniques out in the combat flight simulators I play.
Looking forward to your next video!
I’m thinking hard about my next video about radar scope presentations. There’s nothing like it on the Web today.
@@spiritofattack I'm looking forward to it! Please include as much detail as you can, this information is hard to find and it's fascinating!
@@morganlambert6254 OK, I have to stop writing e-mails so I can start making the damn video!
I really enjoyed this and other videos, i am a former intercept controller and worked my career in europe with F104. Would have loved controlling a setup like that... with starfighters you needed many more miles to turn, unless you turn vertical. Thank you sir, looked a lot like the tactics lesson i had in former times.
Izziomelis - be sure you see my F-106 v F-104 video. The turn to attack us supersonic from the rear would have been interesting!
Really nice video, very insteresting
Thank you for making these sir.
Excellent as always, Bruce! You've got experiences and stories that are impossible to match here on RUclips. Keep up the great work! Always looking forward to new videos!
Yeah, many thanks, your videos are excellent.
The RC-121 was based on the Lockheed Connie, I'd love to see a photo of one of those with some 106s!
Great video. I enjoy all of your work!
The RC-121 and the EC-121 were similar -- I remember it as an RC-121 that got shot down, but Wikipedia says it was an EC-121. Do you know which is correct?
@@spiritofattack I did a Google search and everything that came up said EC-121. I downloaded a PDF file supposedly from the NSA, it says on April 15, 1969 a North Korean MiG 21shot down a U.S. Navy EC-121.
@@isaacarnold4635 Yes, I see the EC-121 also. When I was making the video, the words RC-121 came to me and I didn't want to start the video over. So far, I know of four errors -- I might have to re-do the whole video, but that's such a hard job I might not do it. I'll go on to the next video, the one on radar scope presentations. I make mistakes, but keep pressing on...
@@spiritofattack Yes sir....like a Marine: adapt, improvise, overcome...no need to start over...we love your videos any way you get them to us..!!
I think the Blinder bomber you spoke of was the Tu-22, a supersonic bomber with 2 engines on it's tail
Stormsquad -- You're right! I was in too much of a hurry -- yes, the Blinder was the Tu-22. Sorry about that.
Was there a rivalry between Air Defense Command, Tactical Air Command and Strategic Air Command in those days? Looking at it from what I can Google it at least seems that way, with Curtis LeMay pushing for more funding towards strategic assets like nuclear bombers and neglecting tactical/air defense assets.
As always it's great to hear your stories. Live in fame or go down in flame, nothing will stop the US Air Force!
Everythingman Yes, there was a rivalry - like between schools - friendly rivalry between pilots. At the Pentagon level there was always competition for limited money. We competed with the Army and Navy, too. That is natural and good. We were together against the Russians. We poked fun at fat bomber pilots and Army “grunts”. We had a great respect for the Navy, but their planes were ugly!
I assume the air battles in Vietnam involved more dogfighting because of the rules of engagement, Bruce? I think it was Randy Cunningham in a book where he discusses arriving at the battle area in his Navy F-4 and describes what he sees as looking "like a scene from the movie Dawn Patrol" except instead of biplanes it was jet fighters in a giant swirling furball. Would your encounter with the North Korean MiGs have been a beyond visual range attack?
Helium. - We would lock on beyond visual range but missile launch of our Falcon missiles would be within visual range. We could always abort at the last moment by just releasing the trigger. Even after launch we could abort the radar missiles by pressing a button to break radar lock.
Helium - Vietnam air battles were not for the F-106. The F-106 was a high altitude interceptor, while Vietnam air battles were usually at only half our altitude. I assume the MIGs would not even come up to fight the F-106. MIGs would not fight unless the battle was on their terms. We could have cruised over Vietnam all day and they probably wouldn’t have challenged us. MIGs liked to attack planes loaded with bombs, flying rather low. If we went down to their altitudes we would give up our advantage of long range radar because of ground clutter. In the Korean situation, the MIGs were coming out over water where there was no ground clutter and our radar would have been decisive.
@@spiritofattack Did you ever encounter MiGs in Vietnam while flying the F-100?
@@RCAvhstape No, I didn't. I was flying in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and the MiGs never came south. The MiGs had very short ranges due to very little fuel -- they were point defense fighters, which is one reason they were so light. The USAF has always had to fly long range strikes, so USAF fighters always had a lot more fuel -- which also made us heavier...
Sir, it was priceless as ever, thank you.
In another video you mentioned that with the F102 / F106 you were supposed to fire the missiles in pairs (one IR and one radar guided) to maximise the probability to hit the target but halving the number of shots; was it "compulsory" or could you choose to fire your missiles one by one?
You misunderstood my comment. Yes, we fired two missiles at a time, either the forward or aft bays (or both bays). IR missile were in the aft bay and radar missiles were in the forward bay. So, we fired them in pairs, but they were both EITHER radar or IR. We could not fire the missiles one by one (except that there was a brief (half second) delay between firings). The F-106 was designed to attack bombers, and two bombers was the most that anyone could imagine attacking. Combat against enemy fighters was not a design criteria. We would fire either two IR missiles OR two radar missiles, not one IR and one radar. The doors and rails were activated by stored compressed air, and we would run out of compressed air after two complete firing cycles.
@@spiritofattack I REALLY misunderstood your comment... I think I will need to look for a good monography on the F102/F106 to grasp those details that for you are obvious;
I actually believed that the reason to fire two missiles at a time was to have two completely different guidance systems homing on the same target so that if one was fooled by some countermeasure the other one probably would have hit it, and I didn't imagine that you could open and close the weapons bay just two times. Thank you again for your answer and your patience.
@@nicolaandria522 IR and Radar missiles are needed for different scenarios. Why waste an IR missile on a front attack? Why waste a radar missile if you're attacking in a rear quarter attack? When my four F-106s nearly engaged 20 MiGs off the coast of North Korea in 1969, I planned to use my radar missiles on the front as we came to merge. Then I would go far out of sight (they couldn't turn around fast enough and I was faster than they were, anyway). I would use my radar to select a target that was going away from me, accelerate high supersonic, and come in fast on the tail of some unsuspecting MiG (ignoring the others) and get a second kill with IR missiles on the stern. I would get 2 MiGs and they didn't stand a chance! I would have made the missile selection part of my tactics.
So, was comom training intercption against Black Bird?
Some one even achiev to intercept the Black Bird?...even att training exercice?
Bruno - no, intercepts against the Blackbird were rare. Their missions were very expensive and they could not deviate to meet our needs. Their missions were usually secret so even finding out where they might be was difficult. I was in Michigan near Detroit, and the Blackbird was so fast that we had to get the SCRAMBLE order while they were over Idaho! We could have intercepted them if we were in the right spot at the right time.
A former swedish airforce pilot claimed he locked on to the SR-71. Here's the link. ruclips.net/video/rtmCUsKkqNA/видео.html
@@VNAV_PTH I believe he achieved a radar lock-on, but he doesn't say he reached a firing solution. The Viggen was similar to the F-106 in many respects, but about five years newer. It seems the Swedes had more chances to intercept the SR-71 than Americans did!
Yeah, I think you're right. Oh, and the routes the SR-71 flew around Sweden seemed to be quite predictable, which most certainly would help getting a lock on in the first place. I wonder about what the SR-71 pilots were thinking once they noticed the Viggens were coming for the interception.
@@VNAV_PTH There is only one pilot in an SR-71, unless they are in formation, which seems unlikely. The back seater is a systems operator. And what makes you think they noticed the Viggens at all? The SR-71 has no radar, its not a fighter. The Viggen _claims_ he got radar lock, but thats probably all he got, and you can do that from dozens of miles away. Its the way BVR missiles work. Since they are Beyond Visual Range missiles, it stands to reason you cannot SEE something the radar can see at distance, and unless you have your own radar, you won't have a clue they are there. Of course the entire thing is based around a story a fighter pilot was telling about his exploits, so I dont really see any reason to believe it to start with. Fighter pilots are notorious for making up tall tales that make themselves look cool.
Thank You Mr. Gordon,
Excellent video as usual. Why did you not kill the 2 MiGs that you discuss here? Would that be obviously too provocative? What was the US response to the downing of the slow mover, EC-121?
If you ever have the opportunity, could you please discuss the clear view canopy mod and the 20 mm gatling gun installed on the Six? I have read that the Six sacrificed missiles due to the gun installation?
I have also found that information about the retractable IRST in front of the cockpit of the Six to be quite scarce? Would you mind discussing this in a future video? Perhaps I have yet to find this topic in your many fine videos?
I almost hate to ask, but in any of your “live” intercepts, such as “The Cold Scramble” south of Alaska, did you ever take live Genies aloft?
Would this only be the case if an obvious large number of Soviet bombers were approaching North America?
I am from western Canada, and our retired Voodoo crews are still tight lipped about ANYTHING to do with the Genie.
Best Regards!
#Grim Reaper - 1. You asked why I didn't attack the MiGs that came toward our plane. Answer: They turned back to Wonson, and were no longer threatening our recon plane. I was one part of a flight of four, and I was not in command. Our mission was defensive. I would properly be court-martialed if I turned it into an offensive action, possibly causing a war with North Korea and causing thousands of deaths. It would have been utterly foolish, non-professional, and a violation of our oath to obey orders.
2. What was the US response to the downing of the slower-moving EC-121? Answer: As stated in the video, that was a decision by President Nixon. He really had three choices: go to war, pull back, or provide an escort. We did not retaliate against North Korea -- I was part of the escort for continued missions.
3. Could you please discuss the clear view canopy mod and the 20 mm gatling gun installed on the Six? I have read that the Six sacrificed missiles due to the gun installation? Answer: I never flew with the clear view canopy. It bulges out on the sides so the pilot can look behind his plane more easily, and does not have the 4" aluminum bar that went over our heads -- that could interfere with vision during a dogfight. It seems like the clear view canopy was a good idea, although our visibility was pretty good
I have also found that information about the retractable IRST in front of the cockpit of the Six to be quite scarce? Would you mind discussing this in a future video? Perhaps I have yet to find this topic in your many fine videos?
I almost hate to ask, but in any of your “live” intercepts, such as “The Cold Scramble” south of Alaska, did you ever take live Genies aloft? Would this only be the case if an obvious large number of Soviet bombers were approaching North America? Answer: I never flew with a live Genie, although I fired a training version once. I have pulled Alert with live Genies, but never was scrambled with a live Genie.
Before I flew in the F-106, I flew in the F-102 in Alaska and we DID fly
So, if I understand correctly, you shot down a Mig with a Falcon F shooting from above? Did the F-106 have a look down/shoot down capability?
No, I did not fire because they turned back to North Korea. I could have shot from above with no problem because we were over water and there was no ground clutter.
I’m assuming the F-86D Rockets had Proximity Fuses incorporated into their design to make them more lethal in the case of a near miss?
No, the rockets DID NOT have proximity fuzes. A miss was a miss.
Do you have a certain place you'd like us to buy the book from? Or just find it on Amazon...id like to get a copy but also want to help you out also wish we had a audio version of YOU reading it to us 🇺🇸😉😄
Send $20 to Bruce Gordon, 105 Broadbill Ct., Georgetown KY 40324. Cash, check or PayPal. I mail you an autographed copy, taxes and postage paid in the USA. Send me your email address so I can clarify your address (I can’t read everyone’s writing) or let you know when the book is mailed.
I never thought of reading my book aloud and recording it! I would add a lot of extra detail and descriptions. Does anyone know if special procedures are needed? How would I sell that? Could I sell it through Amazon?
@@spiritofattack alrighty I'm going to do that! Thank you 😊 and yeah you should deff look into it because it would be like a long story your telling us instead of you like just reading a book...and then we can sort of reference stuff in the book while you are talking about it. I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard, kind of like audio books 🤔
@@starfighter1043 I expect that it isn't as easy as it seems. I may need professional guidance. It would be an audio book, so maybe I'll contact an audio book company.
Bruce, could you remind me, please what missile armament was on the F-102 in the begining, i mean before the Genie? I saw your comment about it but have lost it and can't to fint it again! Thank you!
The F-102 carried six FALCON missiles. We usually carried three radar and three infrared FALCONS. They were called Guided Aircraft Rockets (GAR-1 was radar, GAR-2 was infrared). Designation was changed to the AIM-4A and AIM-4B. The F-106 used an improved version, the AIM-4F and AIM-4G. We also carried the GAR-11 nuclear missile and the GAR-11A, its non-nuclear counterpart. I carried both the GAR-11 and GAR-11A while flying the F-102 in Alaska. The nuke on the GAR-11 was smaller than the nuke on the F-106's MB-1 rocket. The problems with handling any nuke made any nuke an extra problem and I much preferred the non-nuclear version, the GAR-11A (later the AIM-26A) which had a very sophisticated guidance system and about the same probability of kill as the nuclear version (in the 99% category). The F-102's version of the FALCON was carried by F-4s in Vietnam and got a bad reputation, that was NOT the same missile as carried by the F-106. I believe the failures of the AIM-4 in Vietnam was because the F-4 did not have the computer system to prepare the missiles properly, and the failures in Vietnam were due to manual preparation of the missiles for firing.
Here is the GAR-11, later called the AIM-26A, that we carried on the F-102. This is the nuclear version -- the conventional version looked the same.
@@spiritofattack Thank you, for such comprehensive information!
I believe the FFAR came in 2in and 2.75in flavors, not 2.5in. A small error no doubt..
Interesting that you should pick that up. I was going on memory. I thought it was 2.75 inch. I went to Wikipedia and a source said it was 2.5 inch, so I used that. Maybe my memory was better than Wikipedia!
I got lost, there were any 106 engaging Migs in Korea?
No, we didn't actually engage them. We got very close to it, though. There were twenty of them and four of us. They turned back. See my video "North Korean MIGs".
Thanks for the clarification Bruce.
Were you ever assigned to the 5th fis ? I was assigned with them from 1967 to 1970 .
@Guy Herring - no, I never flew with the 5th FIS. Where were they based?
Minot North Dakota. Only the best come north .
Bruce, when is the last time you’ve flown and what aircraft?
N6081 - I flew a T-34 about two years ago. It had a much larger engine than the ones I flew in primary training. I tried simple aerobatics, and was shocked to find that maneuvers, such as the aileron roll, which are very easy in any jet fighter, were impossible with the T-34 due to gyroscopic action of the propeller!
Does F-106 radar could lock-down/shoot down?
@pistonessssss No, the F-106 did not have look-down, shoot down radar - which means at low altitude. Of course we could shoot down if the target was not close to the ground where ground clutter is a real problem. We usually would fly BELOW the target so it would be against the sky. True look down requires pulse doppler radar.
@@spiritofattack well, how you managed to lock on those Koreans? Because you were over sea? What type of radar had F-106?
pistonssssss Look-down shoot-down usually refers to the target being at a very low altitude - below 500 feet. If the target is at a normal altitude, above 5,000 feet, the F-106 would have no trouble locking on and shooting down. Draw a mental picture of the path of a radar pulse from the F-106 through the target to the ground - a long, sloping line down. If there are a few thousand feet between the target range and range to the ground, there would be a gap in radar return between the target and the ground. That gap lets the radar lock on. The lower the target, the less gap and the harder to lock on. Those MIGs were probably about 20,000 feet and the F-106 would have no trouble locking on and shooting down.
@pistonssssss The F-106 radar spun its radar feed to create a cone-shaped pattern. This made initial contact easier than with a single “pencil beam”. The spinning cone also was used for tracking after lock-on. Stopping the spin and using a pencil beam was good for long contacts where the angular effect of different target altitudes was less. At closer ranges the angular differences in various target altitudes is greater and the spinning cone improves radar contacts.
Bag some Migs and then home for tea and medals. Makes me miss the cold war.
@spiritofattack >>> 👍👍