HAVE DOUGHNUT
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- HAVE DOUGHNUT was a Vietnam War program which tested a MiG-21 against US fighters to determine strengths and weaknesses for tactics. This video takes the 310 page report and tells the critical facts with stories of how they worked in combat.
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
Love how everyone is so respectful in the comment section on your videos! It's a nice break from all the annoying ones on other videos
this was all very secret squirrel back in the day
amazing how we can talk about it now :)
Mr. Gordon: so glad to see your latest post! I’ve Been anticipating your next installment; another great one! There is a book about the Have Donut 🍩 program that I really enjoyed Red Eagles.
The North Vietnamese story is just now being told. There are many lessons to be learned, but I think of one nobody else seems to think about: the North Vietnamese (or the Russians) had zero capability to attack us. The air war was all over their territory where they had good radar coverage and short ranges, where they had all the advantages. They could not carry the war to us -- their planes didn't have the range or the radar support. The USAF motto was "GLOBAL REACH, GLOBAL POWER" and we planned on long ranges. The F-106 could cruise about four times as far as the MiG-21, and we had aerial refueling capability and excellent radar. The MiGs never could contest us over our own areas.
what actually happened at area 51 is soooo much more interesting and way cooler than all of those other of the way ridiclous stories........
I was surprised at how short-ranged the MiG-21 was. It had nowhere nearly the range of any of the fighters that I flew. It was unable to perform the missions that American fighters flew. Vietnam, where it was a point-defense day fighter right near its own bases, was the perfect place for the MiG-21. We didn't know the limitations of the MiG-21 until the Have Doughnut tests were done...
Pleased to see a new lecture posted. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and history with us..
Whoever decided to not tell our pilots valuable information didn't have the spirit of attack... and they didn't deserve to have that doughnut either.
Thanks for the post Bruce! The MiG 21 seems like a nasty little plane that was good at taking on more sophisticated US fighters
Robert Littell The MIG-21 had many deficiencies, but the battle in Vietnam was perfect for the MIG-21s strengths. It had short range and almost no radar, so it was a point defense day fighter. - perfect for Vietnam! It would have been unable to do the long range attack that our planes had to do. It would have been inferior to the F-106 at high altitudes. It was perfect for Vietnam, where battles were at low to moderate altitudes and it was always close to its base so short range was not a problem.
@@spiritofattack If the US carry out attack at night, what option does the Charlies have to defend themself i wonder?
@@nobeltnium The technology is changing very rapidly. Attacking at night requires the ability to detect and target the enemy at night. In the 1960's, the North Koreans had no ability to stop our night attacks - but we had a hard time finding targets at night.
@@nobeltnium Charlie here ;) from what I've told, a lot of aerial engagement over North Vietnam was at night, particularly at the later part of the war. The later MiG, with bigger nose have a FCR (not a search radar) so it could engage US planes at night. The GCI radar system was sophisticate and was thought to be state of the art at the time so a policy of strict GCI was followed (unlike US pilots who have more control over tactics, NVAF pilots follow guidance from ground to the letter). In general, AA at night would be lessor than during day time as a lot of AAA emplacement would be less effective as they have to rely on search lights and just simply saturate a region with ground fire. SA2 battery would not be affected by the night. I imagine US plane will have hard time finding and accurately hit the targets at night too - there is an infamous incident during Linebacker 2 where B-52 dropped bomb on an resident area and a hospital near by.
Another outstanding video. Thanks for posting it.
Thanks for this interesting video.
I never knew that the F-106 was considered to be deployed to Vietnam.
Would you fly the MiG 21 if you had the chance? I always find it interesting how foreign pilots react to flying other craft.
Oh, yes, I'd love to fly the MiG-21! However, I'm 85 years old now and probably would enjoy a simple flight around the traffic pattern. I couldn't take many G's, but I'd like to look at the cockpit visibility reported in HAVE DOUGHNUT. I'd probably need a week of ground school before attempting to fly...
@@spiritofattackIf you ever do, dont forget to tell us how it was! There are simulators you could try, there are some that model the MiG 21 in quite some detail. And then there is this guy, who talks about his time spent in the 21 : ruclips.net/video/RaPQYCvVN6k/видео.html
Sir. I can only speak from experience in a desktop simulator, DCS in my case. The Mig-21 module in DCS is Mig-21BIS. To defeat an AI veteran flown Mig-21BiS (2 X R-60) flying F-5E (professional flight model) with AIM-9P/P5 or guns, starting with head on merge, on standard day. Slow down the fight to 300-350 KIAS, after the merge, the DCS F-5E's corner-v. DCS AI gets better the longer the fight lasts. At times AI keeps Mig-21 above 450-500 KIAS, and AI's turn rate is slower then F-5E at 350 at MSL 5K-10K. So if I can put my nose on him in a pursuit and have AIM-9P, I can kill him with a missile. But not always. AI Mig-21 goes vertical and that defeats AIM-9P in DCS more often then not. AI Mig-21 in DCS is not very good at fighting on the deck. A 2D turning fight, and AI CFIT's often.
History Chanel's Dogfights Of The 20th Century, Israeli IAF episode covering 1966-1973, depicts fights that often went down to 100' AGL down into canyons, and devolved into gunfights.
One thing I have trouble visualizing is the depiction of aerial ambushes. How does one ambush an enemy above angels 10 on a clear day without clouds above a flat desert? Except the old sun to your back-sun in their eyes dicta from Cpt. Oswald Boelcke.
We didn't have the AIM-9P back in those days. The main deficiencies of the MiG-21 were its poor visibility, especially forward and down, and its poor performance above 535 knots indicated airspeed. Its gunsight was bad, and it usually didn't carry missiles because the missiles available were very limited and couldn't launch above 2 G's. I have never used DCS, but I imagine that in DCS the location of the enemy aircraft is known. In actual combat, about 80% of fighters shot down were not even aware that they were under attack. So, the "aerial ambush" is a real possibility if the other plane doesn't even know he's under attack.
fascinating! thanks so much for expounding on this interesting era of air combat
Thanks Bruce! Really enjoy your videos
Could the F5 hang with the Mig 21? Did it have a fighting chance even though it was much slower?
Yes, the F-5 had a fighting chance - at lower altitudes. "Secret Heroes" by T.D. Barnes said about the Have Doughnut tests: "The TAC evaluation of the F-5A revealed that within performance limits, the F-5 had considerable capability to engage the MiG-21. The F-5 had performance advantage below 15,000 feet, however the MiG-21 had higher Mach capability at higher altitude. Overall turn comparison was about equal and level acceleration was equal in military power, MiG-21 had a slight advantage in afterburner. They had comparable fire control systems. The F-5 controlled the tactical engagement effectively and if defensive
Thank you Mr. Gordon, for first hand information from a your actual personal experience, this is a good as it gets.
The Cannon on MiG 21 after firing several rounds jammed. It was often ill reported by pilots, but russians when experiencing problem always blame personnel for unproper handling, and do not try to even to improve armament. Above-mentioned features all Soviet or Russian made staff. They often blame end user for unproper handling / maintenance when smth goes wrong.
Interesting. It reminds me of the failure of American torpedoes in the beginning of WW II. The fuzes didn't work, but the officers responsible for testing blamed the submarine commanders for using improper procedures. It is now seen as a classic example of the bureaucrats in weapons development refusing to acknowledge that their testing was inadequate. People died because the Navy would not recognize that their torpedoes were faulty.
Later testing showed that NONE of our aerial torpedoes would have worked. During the Battle of Midway, a squadron of torpedo bombers was shot down attacking the Japanese ships. Now we know that, even if their torpedoes had hit the Japanese ships, they would not have exploded.
@@spiritofattack ruclips.net/video/mbEzDxbOyZ0/видео.html this is another video I want to share with you.
Great video, Bruce.
Hello, Bruce. I got your e-mail with the Have Donut attachment but I've been rather busy and just haven't had time to read it, but thank you for sending it to me. You said in this video that you (meaning all of the pilots), were never briefed on this while in VietNam, which could have helped during a Mig encounter. Why do you think this was done? I can understand not wanting to tip our hand to the Russians that we had a Mig-21, but I would think that Russia would have known if Israel had captured one of the Migs. What are your thoughts? Thanks for going thru the document and putting together a video about it; must have taken some time....thanks..!!
An Internet comment was that this was put on by the CIA, and their tight security would not allow it to be briefed to pilots who were not cleared for access to the project! Over-classifying projects has kept information from the war-fighter's hands before. North Vietnamese tanks overran a US Army position one night when the Army had no idea that tanks were around. The CIA knew the tanks were coming, but how they knew it was so secret that they didn't tell the soldiers that tanks were coming! In this case, the MiG-21 was from an Egyptian who defected to Israel. I didn't hear about Have Doughnut until after the war was over!
@@spiritofattack The pilots who most needed the information and who knew and understood all kinds of avionics technology and weapons systems and radar systems....not "cleared" for that info...!! Yea, sounds about right...incredible...but is happens all the time, doesn't it. The tank snafu should have never happened. KInda makes one wonder who is really in charge when the fighting starts.
Very nice video!
Thanks Bruce, love these memories.
LBJ ?
So how would you check 6 if you couldnt look behind you?
That's why we had wingmen. The 6 o'clock low position is blind on most aircraft, but the blind spot is bigger on some planes than on others. Two planes flying in loose formation can check each other's six. We added radar warning receivers late in the Vietnam War that tell you that gun radar is coming from behind you. The F-35 now has the best systems for warning you of attack from behind.
Excellent! :)
So, why could US fighters be controllable up to 700KIAS, is it a more sophisticated flight control system, hydraulics or aerodynamical design? This was not the F-86 vs MiG-15 situation - stabilator vs elevator performance.
That's why I was surprised to find that the MiG's speed limitation existed. From experience, I speculate that it's in the design of the flight controls. I heard that their flight controls were "boosted", that is there were cables that connected the stick to the flight control surfaces, so the pilot was able to have control even if hydraulics fail -- sort of like in the power steering of your car. Most US planes have no connection between the pilot and the flight controls. In the F-100 and F-106 the flight controls are completely hydraulic - which requires "artificial feel" systems to give the flight controls the right feel for the speed, and backup hydraulics in case of engine failure. By connecting the pilot to the control surfaces the MiG does not need backup hydraulic systems, but the hydraulic boost may not be enough under extreme loads.
Thanks!
Considering all the "overbuilt russian machinery" talk, it's quite a surprising performance deficiency.
@@griffn14 Rather, it is simplicity of the Russian system - cables boosted by hydraulics - did not require a "artificial feel" system (complex) and did not require a backup hydraulic system if the engine quit or seized. The Russian system was strong and simple. It just didn't cover extremely high airspeeds!
Very interesting, thanks!
The mighty Thuds still managed 27.5 mig kills over Vietnam, how many were Mig 21's I dont know. Was the F104 tested against the Mig 21?
The Thuds were the favorite prey of MiGs, as they always came loaded with bombs. It's amazing that the F-105 was able to do so well, when it had no superiority over the MiG-21 except to jettison bombs and run away. The kill rate is debatable, as it always is in war. Yes, the F-104 was tested against the MiG-21 in HAVE DOUGHNUT, and the results were as you could guess: The F-104 was faster but could not turn with the MiG-21. Conclusion was: "The MiG-21 has a superior turn capability at all altitudes and airspeeds when compared to the F-104, and the F-104 should never engage in a prolonged, turning fight with th MiG-21".
@@spiritofattack F104 lost to MiG21 in India-Pakistan 1971 war 4:0
@TheGranicd. I would like to know more about each of the battles. Air battles seldom are equal - someone has better position or ground radar support. One may be carrying bombs or fuel tanks and the other clean. The details are important!
Wonder how a 106 would have done with falcons? Didn't the f4c have a real isuse with the falcons in fighter to fighter?
The F-106 had a much more sophisticated fire control computer than the F-4, and the Falcons were designed to use with such a computer system. The F-4's failure with the Falcons was probably because of the lack of a computer to properly prepare and launch the missiles. The F-106 also had WSEMS (Weapon System Evaluator Missiles) which were blue missiles which had recording devices instead of a warhead or rocket motor. WSEMS were carried like missiles and extended and retracted on the launchers. These recorded whether a real missile would have properly detected the target and that the missile systems were all properly prepared. The WSEM data could be compared to actual missile firings at ranges to provide a probability of kill. The F-106s flew only five missions against the MiGs and fired WSEMS on each pass. All the WSEMS "qualified", indicating that the missile were properly prepared and would have worked. From the statistical tables of angle off, G, speeds, etc., the F-106s would probably have made kills in all five cases. That was far better than the .15 PK that the F-4s had with their Falcons. Basically, the F-106 was a better missile launch platform than the F-4.
@@spiritofattack Bruce Gordon woah. What insight. Makes sense when looked at from the perspective of the AF having Falcons shoehorned into a navy fighter. Obviously McD put Falcons on the 101 but we aren't talking about plug and play Eletronics era. Also the 106 would have been almost an electronics generation ahead of the 101.
@@spiritofattackHow the Falcon would've faired in live combat is one of the great what-ifs in fighter plane history. The Falcon-derived Phoenix was wedded to the F-14's radar and fire control system in a similar manner as the Falcon/F-106, and the system as a whole was touted as having amazing performance, but I believe only two Phoenix missiles were ever fired in combat and both failed, each for different reasons. It's unclear if those weapons were just flukes or indicative of a hidden flaw in the design; most of the combat shots taken by F-14s were Sidewinders if I recall. Your own experience with live-fired AIM-4s seems to bear out the design well, especially that BOMARC kill.
@@RCAvhstape The F-106 had WSEMS (Weapon System Evaluator Missiles) that I don't think other planes had. These were a missile body which replaced the warhead and rocket motor with recording devices that recorded all the preparation signals given to the missile, including whether the seeker head properly saw and locked onto the target. With that data, the probability of a missile kill could be compared with actual firings with good confidence. In HAVE DUGHNUT, the F-106s used their radar and fired WSEMS five times in five engagements. All five WSEMS recorded kills, so the probability of actual kill was very high. The F-106 with the Falcon missile was a deadly combination! The F-4 had no such system, so I believe the F-4's problems with the Falcon was the lack of adequate computer systems on the F-4.
one of my best buddies dad was a pilot of this plane Capt, Joe B Jordan..a true American Hero
i know a community online who would get a kick out of this youtube
sharing it over there - watch your hit count : )
what are you talking about✌
@@aishikb22 - DCS World (digital combat simulator)
google it :)
@@SDsc0rch i knw hoggit. I just came from ur post i guess. The phrasing was poor in the comment lol
I wonder if the digital combat simulators would like the HAVE DOUGHNUT results -- digital combat simulators don't usually have things like restricted visibility, high stick forces at high indicated airspeeds, pipper jitter, etc., that are so important in the real world... I could be convinced otherwise - or the simulators could be updated to show those peculiar aircraft limitations.
@@spiritofattack Many combat simulators go as far as to simulate control surface lockup at high IAS, such as Il-2 Battle of Stalingrad and DCS, or Digital Combat Simulator. For example, the Chuck Yeager-learned behaviour of the Mig-15 in a dive is simulated. Currently the only other Vietnam Era aircraft in the game are the Mig-19, Sabre, Mig-21Bis and F-5E. As such, we can't know whether the mig-21 system and flight modelling in the game is accurate to Have Doughnut, as the Mig-21F is a significantly earlier variant of the jet. The bis has the ability to carry many more missiles and a wider array of ordinance, it has a search and fire control radar, radar guided missiles and a GsH-23 double barrel gun, which has a much more favorable armament, with a higher muzzle velocity and many more rounds to spare. The Mig-21's engine is modelled pretty well In DCS, in particular its very easy to stall out characteristics, along with its overheating and other quirkcs and limitations.
What a gem of a posting - Thank you for your service and insights
The Pipper going off the scope after 2,5G is represented in the game DCS Mig21Bis. It seems to be a problem of the guns mounted below the fuselage. It is fine for ground attacks or gunning a bomber, but not nice for a maneuvering target. F18 and F16 have their guns pointing upperward on top of the fuselage, much better when you need to put some lead while firing at high Gs. Could we define those guns as Air to Ground and Air to Air guns respectively ?
The F-100 had its four 20mm cannons mounted under the fuselage, but didn't have the 2.5 G problem that the MiG-21 had. I think the problem was that the intake of the MiG-21 blocked the view forward and down, which wasn't a problem with the F-100. I speculate that the MiG-21's round intake with the intake spike (allowing it to go high supersonic) pushed the intake into the pilot's vision. The F-100 (which seldom went supersonic) had an oval intake, which didn't get into the pilot's view as much.
Seeing how the F100 pilots superior piloting skill led to the MIG 21 flying into the ground should the F100 pilot have been given credit for downing the Mig?
He didn't claim a "kill" until he found about the MiG being lost that day -- I think it was after the war. I found out about it on the Web so there may be more information about whether he was ever credited with the kill. There are rules about claiming a kill -- someone has to witness it, or your gun camera has to show the enemy on fire or the pilot bailing out. Those rules would make it hard to claim a kill.
@@spiritofattack I thank you for answering my question. I asked because I had heard of a simalar situation over Iraq where the F15? Pilot received credit for downing a Iraqi Mirage that flew into the ground during combat.
@@mikewysko2268 That might work if someone witnessed it happen. Otherwise, USAF rules would give him a "probable".
My understanding is that it could be considered a “maneuvering kill,” ie that the Hun pilot forced his adversary to fly into terrain during the fight. There was at least one of these awarded to an Eagle driver during Gulf War I.
@@stevefreeland9255 That might be OK if someone witnessed the event. This F-100 "kill" had no witnesses and no gun camera - and the pilot didn't even claim it at the time.
No radar was only on early version of 21 that was tested by US. Vietnam had operated also newer versions that had proper radar like MiG-21MF.
TheGranicd What do you consider a “proper “ radar? I doubt that the MIG-21MF had what I would consider a “proper “ radar.
My friend used to work on aircraft factory in SU. He told me a story of initial aircraft produce. It was the first instance they produce, and experienced numerous issues. The holes on the wing did not match the holes on the fuselage, and workers forced the screws through the holes by hammers. When initially flown this aircraft lost its wing and collided to pieces. Everything was done badly, the piping was leaking fuel, electricity blown fuses, etc. But afterwards they greatly improved its quality, and this aircraft became one of the best in Russian air force.
Unfortunately, problems like that happen too often - especially the first model of any plane. The list of discrepancies is often many hundreds of items. I expect that computer aided manufacturing methods will make problems like that less common in the future.
Bruce Gordon: Do you think the ROE also played a factor in our losses to Mig-21"s ? Since civilian airliners (like the French) were still flying into North Vietnam? I recall reading about a near incident involving an Air France flight, that resulted in a no BVR shots rule - or something to that effect - that limited the effective employment of the AIM-7, as an example. Seems with the capabilities of the US Military, and it been a, "no hold's barred", situation... Many of them wouldn't have had the chance to get close. Not to diminish the importance of learning and adapting, for the skills needed when having to tangle with the Mig-21.
Yes, the ROE probably were a factor in our losses to MIG-21s in Vietnam. However, we would probably have had similar ROE even without political pressure. There were many different units flying over Vietnam and our IFF was limited to detecting friends in our own units. The Navy and Air Force were not closely coordinated so an unknown might be Navy. Shooting down one of our own planes is intolerable. It’s better to forego a shot at a MIG than to shoot down a friendly plane.
@@spiritofattack: You put a shaper focus on it...the complex choreography of it all. I tend to focus on thing put off limits, that would have crippled the enemy... The Foggy Bottom factor.
Just about everybody has a horror story, that was involved, where coordination between the branches was at the root of it. I wasn't aware that IFF was that compartmentalized between the players!
Certainly shapes the outlook, after the fact.
Surprising to hear about the gun problems with the Mig-21... In all the threat study I had to do, this is the first I heard of it! So people playing, "I have a secret", went on for a long time. Most emphasis was on the Atoll... There were several pilots who saw them streaking over the top of them, after a Mig Pilots was able pull off a hit and run from behind a three ship cell - all those heat sources in a row, and didn't hit a one: So the Atoll wasn't spoken of in high regard in the community I was in... But could have been pilot who rushed their shot? People were just very lucky? The airframe, and weapons, itself didn't have a record of NOT shooting things down, after all.
@@theduck1972 I heard that the Atoll missile had such a poor record with the Russians that it was seldom used in Vietnam - they mostly used guns. I'm not sure why it performed badly, but assume it was an early IR system with an uncooled seeker, which would be easily drawn off by reflections from clouds or things on the ground. Later seekers were cooled, usually with argon, so they looked more closely at the temperature range of burning fuel from a jet engine.
There were many problems with IFF, because your squadron's code was different from other squadrons or from the Navy, so only your own squadron showed up as friendly. There was the problem of foreign aircraft that may be allies (think of Europe). The Russians were able to break our IFF codes, and sometimes used our own IFF codes. I understand now that our sensors can determine what kind of plane we're looking at, but that might still be a friendly. For example, the MiGs are used by some of our allies, especially India. The F-35 seems to have the best ability to tell who is who, by combining data from sensors. We didn't have that in Vietnam.
@@spiritofattack: With the Atoll: That makes sense, in light of your presentation of the earlier uncooled Sidewinder seeker head... along with the Atoll being a copy of at least one Sidewinder they managed to poach. A "B" Model Sidewinder, if I have the story right. Sounds like it was a very exact reproduction, since you highlighted those same problems the early one's had.
IFF in the tactical realm was something we simply didn't deal with, on my end of the business...So zero practical experience with it, and therefore misconceptions I've had with it. B-52s being designed as a single penetrator, and expected to operate in an environment where nothing friendly is going to be around, it was deemed not necessary to have the ability to interrogate IFF. There was a procedure - maneuver - for identifying friend from foe, that we found out apparently only we were aware of! The Navy pilots we talked to, years after Vietnam, still weren't being briefed... with several tragic results that had happened in night skies over Vietnam, I would have thought they would have.
I imagine you folks in the Interceptor Community knew of the ID Maneuver, you would be the few that did, unfortunately.
@@theduck1972 An ID maneuver was best for ID to a group station, not to fighters in a BVR situation. Also, the plane under attack may not know he is under attack, so would continue without any maneuver. So, and ID maneuver would be useless in a combat environment. IFF has become more sophisticated, especially with the F-35 generation, but I'm not privy to what they do...
Which jet had the worse visibility? The F-106 or the MiG-21?
The F-106 had a lot better visibility than the MiG-21. We had excellent visibility forward and down and pretty good aft. The canopy was modified in the 1970s to get rid of the metal strip above the pilot's head (personally, I never found it to be a problem) and to bulge the canopy so the pilot could look back better. The MiG-21s visibility was surprisingly poor. The F-106 attack on the front would try to come in below and in front of the MiG, using our radar and attack him from his blind front so he wouldn't even see the f-106s coming.
Have doughnut will travel
What about the Delta Dagger f-102?
The F-102 was not evaluated on HAVE DOUGHNUT. I flew the F-102 and know that it was slower than the MiG 21 but could out-turn the MiG 21. F-102 pilots were not trained in fighter tactics.