DEATH OF AN INTERCEPTOR: MiG-21s Ambush F-102 Delta Daggers Laos, 1968
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- In the afternoon of February 3rd 1968, a MiG-21 Fishbed flown by one of the VPAF’s top aces, Phạm Thanh Ngân, ambushed, shot down and killed Captain Wallace Wiggins, who was flying an F-102A Delta Dagger interceptor.
This is the only confirmed loss of an American jet interceptor, which makes the story interesting in its own right. In this video I explore how the Deuce, an aircraft essentially unsuitable for fighter-on-fighter action came to be in Vietnam at all. I also go into a bit of detail on the F-102 weapon system, the tactics of both sides and why a much worse outcome for the US was avoided.
I hope you enjoy this one. It was both fascinating to research and tragic to make. Throughout I felt sad for Wallace Wiggins and his family. He was a good pilot put into an impossible situation by tactical demands of the moment and strategic decisions taken two decades earlier.
As ever, if you do find it interesting please consider subscribing.
Notes and Sources:
Story from the US point of view: www.vietnamwar...
Story from the VPAF point of view: theaviationgee...
Broader context to the F-102’s mission in Vietnam and SEA: www.keymilitar...
Very detailed look at the roll of the EB-66 in Vietnam and other theatres:
apps.dtic.mil/...
Preview 1 story and more information about MiG tactics in hunting the EB-66 in the comments of this Aviation Geek Club article: theaviationgee...
Detailed story on the F-102, including technical data that I used to calculate wing loading and power-to-weight ratio: www.airvectors....
General history of the F-102 in Vietnam, including information on basing and a short passage on the shoot down: vietnam.warbird...
Weather in Vietnam on the day: weatherspark.c...
Report on Wiggins’ death: www.vietnamwar...
Deep dive into the F-102’s weapons bay and typical load out. The section on Project STOVE PIPE specifies that Lomax shot three AIM-4Ds, but the weapons missed because the MiGs moved out of range: www.thedrive.c...
Ordnance load out details for South East Asian F-102s from ‘F-102 In Detail And Scale’ by Bert Kinsey and Rock Roszak
Some pithy notes on flying the F-102 on alert. Note comments about turn rate and inability to use the vertical in a dogfight due to climb rate. hushkit.net/20...
F-102 cockpit images: inchhighguy.wo...
Details on the North Vietnamese layered defence network: www.allworldwa...
Vietnam War B-52 missions by month and location: www.americanwar...
Having flown in EB-66s in SEA, I appreciate this video and your comments. Your thoughts are interesting and may be correct but let me add this. Even in 1968 we has ELINT ac that would have known about the Mig-21 launch. They were SAC ac tasked by SAC/NSA and could not share this info in a timely manner for fear of compromising the ELINT source. So we lost people because of this questionable policy. Not until late 1972 did we have some semblance of 'real time' intel to crews flying similar missions.
Actually “we lost people” because we were involved in a war that we had no business being in.
Man…I know your logic is probably sound. But could you break that down in a form that a civilian can understand? I’m absolutely clueless as to the point your trying to make because of all the acronyms.
Sure sure other commenters are going to say rude things to my comment here because I don’t know but I don’t care about them. Just looking to learn more about the subject, from someone who seems to have inside knowledge.
@@matthewconrad4728 Maybe he will give a better answer. Basically an airborne radar aircraft, usually well offshore would see the enemy take off. ELINT is airborne radar. There was no communication because it might compromise the ELINT. I don’t quite understand the problem but if there was a questionable policy that got crews killed, then yes I’m sure there was a problem.
Same policy in Afghanistan on the ground. The Warlock and Crew systems defeating IEDs had direction finders giving the location of the enemy pushing the PPT radio button, but it was forwarded to intel and not to the soldiers on the ground who had no idea where the ambush was coming from…. All the talk about intel needing it to get to the top guy or to the nest of course never materialized, the pursuits never really occurring seriously. It was a bunch of control clap trap rejecting integration in order to keep power and director (without direction) position.
@@guaporeturns9472 the only war we have no business in is fighting EACH OTHER politically, as Vietnam was more a sabotage operation of the US by traitors at State than a war. That “war” was never declared, by the way.
About ripple-fire, my dad flew F-89 D/H/J and he recalls the 102 firing three at a time, only. The 89's would fire three as well, but a mix of IR and radar. The idea being, if he target could jam one, probably would not jam the other as well.
Thanks! Very useful to have that confirmed - I am nearly finished on a F-102 deep dive and it has been bugging me!
@@notapound We'll look forward to seeing it! Comments dad made about the 102 and 106 over the years is that they pushed technology too much. For one, during exercises the 101's would come back, refit, and go back out. The 102/106's would be on the apron with a tech on a headset talking to the pilot, with the equipment bays opened working on a problem. For one, seems they didn't do well in the Florida heat. Another time, the AF wanted a publicity film of the 106 scoring a kill on a Bomarc. A 101 flew chase with the RO holding a camera. The 106 was a two-ship and the primary was a two-seater, to split the work load (which made clear a second seat was needed). Still, they had a devil of a time getting a lock. Meanwhile, the 101 had a lock the entire time, commenting "If we had a missile we'd shot it down for you." Eventually the 106 got it done. Dad coined it "comical" and typical.
Also, the 89 was slow so he preferred a head-on attack, and did practice. Said it worked extremely well. He could even defeat the range-gate-stealer ECM the Hustlers used. However, ADC only trained pursuit intercept so-as to simplify training. Same with the RF-4C and 111. He'd dig through the -1 to see what else he could make use of, but the AF only bothered to teach a subset of each aircraft types full capabilities.
Prior to this incident Lomax was known to declare, in the Udorn Officer's club bar, that he intended to shoot down a Mig during his SEAsia tour with his F-102. He received a lot of laughs with that. It is understood that, on the ill fated mission, he had adjusted his orbit closer to the threat than was dictated by mission planners, hoping to engage any Migs who ventured South. It is also understood that he received warnings of the attack although he had already compromised the formation with his geographical position. He go what he asked for. Following the incident, we flew the mission in the F-4D. Often, if Migs ventured towards the South we would try to bait them into range for an engagement. They would invariably run away.
Brilliant context - thanks so much for the comment. Very informative!
Hmm getting in aerial combat instigated by the enemy who out number you sounds like they were smart to avoid the pointless battle.
Your multiview drawing is of the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, which replaced the F-102 Delta Dagger. A very different aircraft, though same basic layout. I worked avionics on the F-106 in the late 1970s. The AIM-4 Falcon didn't work well on the Phantom II, because the fire control system was not designed for it.
It was far more reliable on the F-106.
The two Convairs - F-102 and F-106 - were designed as bomber interceptors. The major fault here was the Deuce being utilized in a tactical situation it was not designed for.
Good video about an oft forgotten battle. I agree the F-102 had no business doing that mission.
Thank you. In an age of multi-role aircraft it’s easy to forget how specialised many of the second and even third generation fighters really were.
@@notapound The cool-down time of the Aim-4's should have been enough to convince you that the Deuce was unfit for this role. Especially combined with it's lack of maneuverability. I'd even go as far as to call it an indefensible lack of competency from the higher-ups (judged from an 'internet-general :))
Vietnam and ADC veteran Bruce Gordon is quite vocal in his opinion that the F-106 and its improved Falcons would've been more than a match for the MiG-21.
@@Chilly_Billylots of stuff could have or would have been this or that… let’s stay in reality shall we?
@@Chilly_Billy the F-106 was not better than the F-4. After war analysis put the F-4 vs Mig-21 close to even on kills vs each other.
There's a video of Col. Robin Olds describing how useless he Falcon missiles were. His 8th TFW was equipped with the then-new F-4D, which was equipped with the Falcon AAMs instead of the F-4Cs Sidewinders. There was no USAF procedure at the time for Sidewinders on the F-4D, but Col. Olds ordered his director of maintenance to alter his F-4Ds to shoot Sidewinders and it was successful. By the time upper echelons discovered that the F-4Ds had been altered it was a successful program.
Honestly it is sad that the AIM-4s were treated so poorly considering the F-4Ds didn’t have the necessary equipment to properly use them anyways. The AIM-4s would have probably done better on F-106s considering that unlike both the F-4 and the F-102, it isn’t sluggish in it’s turns and can certainly hold it’s own in a maneuvering engagement.
I worked on the F106s in the early 1980s, avionics technician, shortly before they were retired.
I had a little confidence in the Air to air missiles, however the ace in the hole for the 106 was a nuclear rocket launch ballistically with computer aiming. Or something like that, all I have to do is get close enough, and that’s good enough, but that was a doomsday weapon. That’s the only reason I like the 106, besides the fact it was a beautiful airplane. It’s practice after the 102 with a piece of shit!
But in fairness, Soviet AAMs back then were utter rubbish, so it balances out...!
Before I retired, I worked in aerospace instrumentation. I once attended a professional meeting where I ended up at dinner sitting next to an engineer from a missile test range (I think it might have been Oceana). He explained how drones were expensive, so when testing with Sidewinders they would crank in an offset to the guidance system of the missile to insure it would miss the drone. He further explained they never bothered to do this with the Falcon, as it never hit the drone anyway. Their nickname for the Falcon was "the friendly missile".
He never got his 5th Mig cause of that missile.
The rationale for the NV breaking off combat makes sense.
Pilots were highly valued, and NV couldn't get in a war of attrition with the US. Plus, it was 50/50 that additional US aircraft could suddenly appear on their six.
It was a good choice on their part.
Very nice video, thanks for posting.
Nobody wants a fair fight either.
FYI, The technical drawing @1:41 is a F-106, not a Deuce
The F-102 is the F-106's fatter older sister.
@@PavewayJDAM The F-102 is the
F-106s underpowered older sister.
God, could you imagine how that moment would feel?
Plane 1: I'm experiencing some control issues, can you visually inspect?
Plane 2: Sure, give me a sec... "!" BRO, there's a FUCKING MISSILE sticking out of you; we're under attack !
It is possible that the MiG-21's used in this engagement did not have cannons. Vietnam was initially provided with the F-13 variant in 1964, which did have a single internal 23mm cannon, but it only had 60 rounds. Later, around 1966, Vietnam was provided with the MiG-21PFL, which was not equipped with cannons at all. While Vietnam did receive the MiG-21PFM, which could carry a pair of 23mm cannons in an external pod, these didn't start arriving in Vietnam until 1968, with most of them being delivered up through 1972. During the engagement in 1968 against the F-102's, the most numerous MiG-21 variant in service at the time would have been the MiG-21PFL, which did not have cannons. The MiG-21F-13's would have been largely replaced, retired, or destroyed by 1968, and if any MiG-21PFM's had been delivered, they may not have yet been in front line service, and may not have been equipped with cannon pods anyway. So, after the lead fighter fired his K-13 missiles, one firing, the other failing, and the wingman also firing a K-13, best case the MiG-21's had a single K-13 between them, and no cannons. Furthermore, with the K-13 being a copy of the AIM-9B, it was rear-aspect only against a largely non maneuvering target. Facing two alerted US fighters, the chance of success probably looked grim, and so withdrawing to preserve the MiG-21's was the right choice.
A pair of small observations, the cannon used by the MiG-21 F-13 was a 30 mm NR-30, and while the PFM could indeed carry the GP-9 gunpod with a GhsK 23-2 cannon, in practice this would often not be done since it meant sacrificing the external, underfuselage fuel tank which given the MiG-21's short range would often be necessary in intercept missions.
They had proably the order not to risk their jets in any way , guns or not they might only operated on a hit and run base .
Not to get stuck in a dogfight againt an enemy who might could call in reinforcements or had other units in the area .
Its a lot easier to say after the fact how much they could have done but right there and then it looked different fore sure .
I was not familiar with the AIM-4 before viewing this video. I see the logic of the design, but also the reason why it failed in its mission. It didn't die in complete failure, as Hughes took the shape and produced the immensely successful AIM-65 Maverick, which doesn't have to pull dogfight maneuvers to get the job done.
It wasn’t even exactly a failure. It was forced to do something it wasn’t designed to do. The Falcon was supposed to be fired at Tu-95s, not MiG-21s.
It was also the basis for the Hughes AIM-47 Falcon, the direct predecessor of the AIM-54 Phoenix.
@@Db--jt7bt ; It was a failure, it hardly ever worked even in its intended role.
The F-106 was a lot better. But it needed better missiles Bruce Gordon’s (an F-100, F-102 and F-106 pilot) said the F-106 was an excellent dog fighter and far faster than the F-4. His videos online (RUclips) are excellent
Really great and detailed analysis. It reminds me that there were fighter and interceptor aircraft in the cold war and though they may look similarly sleek and capable, the actual purposes and capabilities were far apart. Thanks for your time in creating this.
‘Not a pound for air to ground’ absolute quality content well done sir please do a documentary or 10 on the Mig21 all variants will be much appreciated thanks again.
Thanks… I agree that there needs to be several videos on the Fishbed. It changed so much over its life. First one is going to be on the F-13… then we’ll see where we go!
The F-102 and F-104 were rushed to the Vietnam theater for fear of the IL-28 doing bombing raids from either China or North Vietnam (similar to what the North Koreans and Chinese did with night time air raids against US/UN bases during the Korean war.
The F-104Cs ended up doing a lot of close air support and interdiction work, as did the 102s.
The IR sensor in the Deuce's nose was used to spot and search for trucks along the Ho Chi Mihn trail at night and during poor weather. The rocket packs in the bomb bay doors gave the F-102 a limited ground attack capability.
Excellent narrative, based on obviously extensive research. Subscribing.
Dave Riley, LtCol, USAF (Ret.)
F-100, O-2, OV-10, F-105, F-4
Thank you, sir, for your service. Which of those aircraft is your favourite?
@@Hartley_Hare The Republic F-105 Thunderchief by a mile. 600+ KIAS at low level, without even using afterburner (or reheat, as Graham Chapman and John Cleese would call it). Mach 2 capable at altitude. Rock-solid stability when strafing, making bomb runs or flying BFM/DACT.
@@daveriley6310 I'm immensely happy to hear that as I have a giant soft spot for Republican fighters, going back to the ideological forebear, the Seversky P-35. They were big, heavy things and I'm a big, heavy chap, so it feels like we have something in common. The F-105 doesn't get much love in forums, I think because of its loss rate in Vietnam, but that may be because of the way stats were calculated or the fact they were asked to do difficult things. And the Chapman and Cleese reference absolutely delighted me, btw. Even we've had to bend to reality and call it afterburner, but at least a rabbit is still a rabbit, no matter where we are...
@@Hartley_Hare Alexander Kartveli worked with Seversky, a fellow Georgian expatriate, on the P-35. Then he went on to design the P-47, F-84, F-105 and A-10.
The Thud may not get a lot of love from keyboard warriors pontificating on forums, but that just highlights their ignorance. (I will point out here that 'ignorance' is not necessarily a disparaging term. Strictly speaking, it just means lacking in actual knowledge on a given subject.) Pilots who have gained proficiency in the F-105 respect it and even love it. I certainly did. I was more at home in the cockpit of a Thud than anyplace I have ever spent time.
Sir, flying the O-2 and OV-10, how much FAC work did you do? I salute you for your service.
🦅🇺🇸
Just happened across this channel, excellent video on an air engagement I had not heard of before in the Vietnam war.
Would love to see some more VPAF focused videos as I think it would be an interesting thing to see as it's not really something that is well covered or known in great detail here in the west.
Great content again. 👍
Good stuff; however at 3:19 you have a F-106, not a -102 illustrated in the specs.
AIM-26 nuke being deployed at 5:13 in a F-102B two-seater trainer
Doh! I was trying to be so careful about that as I’d prepared the -106 view for a different cut of the video… and still got it wrong. Thanks for comment - appreciate it!
@@notapound
They're quite difficult to differentiate in outline. The best way to tell the difference is the intake location. Excellent video
There's a good book I haven't finished reading yet called Glory Days, about the e-war over Vietnam in the EB-66, with lots of good content similar to this
The trainer version of the 102 was designated TF102. The F106 was originally going to be the F102B. I worked on the MG10FCS for 4 years in the early '60s. If I remember correctly missiles could not be individually fired. They were fired 3 at a time and I believe the FFAR rockets were removed when the 102 got infra red search and tracking capability.
@@billkunert7281
You are correct sir! F-102B is actually the F-106A
I used to see Pennsylvania Air Guard flying F 102 Delta Daggars in two or three formation. Back then you would hear a sonic boom far away from the suburbs of Pittsburgh.
Serendipity. I was just wondering about the PA air guard using the F 102 and during what years and where based.
Great video and apart from a few stumbles well spoken and well read.
The F-102 and its successor F-106 are among my favourite aircraft, as you said they simply exude speed even when stationary. I have flown them in the old Avalon Hill boardgame Flight Leader and as you point out the AIM-4 and Air to Air rockets just simply don't cut it against maneuvering fighters. Neither aircraft is (yet) in the video game War Thunder but every chance I get I leave comments asking for the developer Gaijin to add them. Gaijin seems to think that bombers and interceptors after 1945 aren't worth playing though so we are not likely to see either of them any time soon.
I was referred to this video by a friend after I recently finished reading your last reference (Tactics And Techniques Of Electronic Warfare) and made a Facebook post about the subject and electronic warfare in general, this area seems to me to be a field that has not received anywhere near enough attention from the gaming community as it should so I have started working on a game on that very subject.
Keep up the great work, I have definitely subscribed and will be commenting regularly.
Me, too. I agree with your assessment on the video above. Finally enough, the F-106 and F-102 have always been amongst my favorite aircraft, and I always wondered why they weren't used as fighter escorts or day fighters for offensive counter air during the Vietnam War, but this video made sense of it to me.
2:30 MiG21 F-13 has no radar. 11:17 Vietnamese MiG-21 F-13 has no SPO. No radar warning receiver. 16: Typical interception without external fuel tanks from start of engine to land in Polish Air Force took typically between 12-15 minutes. T-O - Climb with Afterburner - Intercept - Disengage - Landing. 45min. of flight is possible if no AFB was used. Surely not in a case of combat intercept. 4 flights a day are completely possible.
One thing missed here is the tactics used by the Deuces (F102). Something I noted during my 24 yrs. with the USAF. They were a two ship with no rear protection. ADC aircraft rarely flew tactical missions prior to the introduction of DACT training. A lot of hours were on "Dolly" (Sage site-controlled missions) IE: computer controlled). We (I mean the USAF) failed to learn from the past) There is a tactic called the Thatch Weave. Hard to say positively but it might have saved one more pilot. As for the Falcon AAM, I have nothing good to say about it. However, you did try to defend its concept. BTW just found this good job!
Thank you - very informative comment. I'm planning a proper deep dive into the Falcon - an interesting, if flawed weapon system!
Hello,
I read awhile back that there was one MiG-17 Kill by a US Army OV-1 Mohawk - February, 1968.
A near miraculous hit with a combination of the squirrelly, unguided 2.75" air-ground rocket, and .50 caliber machine gun rounds from underwing pylon pods.
I also enjoy very much listening to USAF Ret's Col. Bruce Gordon on his RUclips channel. I mention this because it seems a shame that the incredible Six was never employed in the Vietnam war.
He had been based in South Korea on alert with the F-106.
If only more F-106s had been produced, they might have made a splendid, pure air-air, high performance counter to the MiG-21 in particular?
As you know, many were modified with a clear top canopy, and an internal 20 mm cannon.
They were extremely fast, and in particular could engage in ACM at supersonic speeds.
Thank You for another very informative and interesting video on a quite rare military a/c topic!
Cheers!🇨🇦🍺
I like you on EDs website. Nice to see you here.
This channel is ridiculously underrated and under-subscribed.
My obsrrvations of the engagement broadcasted, is that the Mig-21 missle did find it's target, and did penetrate the, F-102's fuselage as was witnesed by the, American fighter pilots fellow wingman of a enemy missle sticking out of the side of the aircraft. But for some reason the air to air missle had a delayed detonation. With the G-forces of both pilots turning and with the G-forces along with possible combined, engine heat and vibrations hitting the missles, the explosive fuse is triggered and turned the initial dud, into a deadly kill shot, by the, North Vietnamese Pilots when they thought they had failed in their intial attack. The F-102 was built for speed, but as you had stated in the broadcast, they were the wrong aircraft for that type of mission.
I can't thank you enough for boiling down this story into a short and info packed video.
Excellent presentation. I wasn't aware that the Deuce had been deployed to Vietnam. Outwardly appearing as a sleek interceptor, but so many flaws. Definitely not a dogfighter. I wonder if the improved version, what became the F-106, would've faired any better in the same situation.
Though similar in appearance, the Dart is a different aircraft in every way. The Dart was extremely agile and extremely fast. The USAF used it to simulate MIG-21s in training and it was in fact more agile than the MIG. There a few videos here on RUclips that cover this. Cheers.
Some early Delta Wing Fighters example Mirages and F-102s were poor dogfighters.
Their wings hindered them in turns and banking in a dogfight. They were truly "Bomber Interceptors."
Another possibility for the PVAF abort might have been concern over the AA-2 missiles not functioning effectively. It seemed as if there might have some sort of reliability issue (from the PVAF point of view), which would have made the engagement a bit risky for a marginalized upside.
Their hit rate with the Atoll was something like 1-2% IIRC, so you are likely correct in that assessment. Albeit this was the perfect set up for shooting the missile - 6 o'clock against a target flying straight and level...
Thank you. Superb analysis and detail of an often quoted mission that left me thinking.
Please continue to investigate and question I’m certain there are other like minded out there that may have sufficient interest and viable knowledge to contribute.
A lot of fighter pilots badmouthed the Falcon as unreliable. Thanks to field modifications ordered by Colonel Robin Olds during the Vietnam War, the AIM-9 Sidewinder largely replaced the AIM-4 Falcon in relatively short order. Like many others, I shared this low opinion of the AIM-4 when I entered active duty in 1978. By this point the Falcon was slowly being phased out, but its tarnished reputation remained. During my first assignment I was tasked with supervising the writing of airmen promotion tests. We would bring in senior NCOs each month who were technical experts in their chosen Air Force Specialty Code. One of the teams I supervised was composed of air-to-air missile technicians, so it wasn't long before I asked them why the Falcon was so undependable. One of the NCOs had served under Robin Olds in Vietnam and he shook his head at my comment, then responded by saying, "Lieutenant, there was nothing wrong with the reliability of the AIM-4. We caught hell from the pilots, but we told them they were employing them incorrectly. The missile was doing exactly what it was designed to do." I want to thank you for setting the record straight about the how the Falcon missile system worked and why this led to its poor success rate. Maybe a few old retired missile techs are nodding their heads in approval.
Thanks so much for the detailed comment and the contemporary reflection on the subject. The more I researched it, the more I realised that ‘Falcon = bad’ was simplistic. It was built for a purpose. It had its advantages and disadvantages, as did the AIM-9B Sidewider.
Thanks again. Glad you enjoyed the video!
...sounds to the average aircraft enthusiast like me that the AIM-4 was just too complicated to operate, and was certainly not designed for Vietnam war scenarios. I very much doubt that it would have have had success, even in the role it was intended for! ☹
@@manuwilson4695 Possibly, but if they had put a nuke on it, you'd have a guided Genie. 🙂
@Paladin1873 A nuclear warhead on a close range air to air missile puts the firing aircraft in serious danger. But then again you Americans wouldn't have given a shit 💩 about that. 🤷♂️
@@Paladin1873 They did. It was the AIM-26.
It's appalling that they used the Falcon missile when it was such a terrible design. It's no wonder there were so many protests against the war. I remember a main stream news report once where some fliers refused to go on a mission because they were being shot down while attacking TRUCKS along the Ho Chi Mihn trail. Something like that. Losing lives over a truck convoy. As one flier put it, they were expending a $4 million dollar missile to take out a $40,000 dollar truck.
B-66 originally a US Navy aircraft, the A3D or as it became to be known All 3 Dead!
Check out Bruce Gordon's youtube channel. He is a Vietnam vet who flew the F-102, F-106, and in Vietnam the F-100. He has a more positive opinion of the AIM-4, as long as it is used properly.
The three view of the F102 is actually an F106.
There's also one other reason that might have influenced the pilots, at least at the time. Like the F102, at least part of their armament was to kill large and maneuverable aircraft.
The NR30 cannon was an improvement over the 37 mm on the MIG 17. The problem is if the video is correct you had 30 rounds for an aircraft with a rate of fire of 900 rounds per minute. 2 seconds. I wonder how it would have developed if they'd had the 23mm cannon, but I'm thinking carried 150 or 200 rounds typically?
Their missiles weren't terribly reliable too, because if you think about it they got one hit out of four from a perfect six o'clock in trail surprise attack. Also the f-102 from below would look like it had a much better maneuver profile than a mig-21. If the migs don't know they don't have a cannon, disengaging is a very rational move.
Man I've been binging these videos like crazy. Really high quality content!
The US Fighters withstanding the F-5, F-104 and F-8 were dogfighters during Vietnam.
The F-4 was a multi role pressed into dogfighting.
Good overview! I didn't know the F-102 had seen any combat.
EDIT: I meant ‘air-to-air combat’
Thanks :). It also saw combat during the Cyprus conflict. Both Greece and Turkey flew it. The Greeks claim to have shot down an F-102 in a dogfight with an F-5. I haven’t quite got to the bottom of what happened there yet as the Turkish side claim that the F-102 shot down an F-5… when I figure it out there’s a video there!
Thanks again for the comment. Appreciate it!
@@notapound Thanks again! Greek/Turkish combat is more news to me. In a turning fight, I'd have to give the odds to the F-5.
@@notapound About the shooting down of the 2 Turkish F-102As (one hit by an AIM-9B and the other crashing due to fuel starvation as a result of the engagement) in 22/7/1974 by a pair of Hellenic Air Force QRA F-5As, you can find an interview (in Greek) of the Greek wingman, Lieutenant General ret. (then 2nd Lieutenant) Thomas Skambardonis in this link ruclips.net/video/vh_-OlyuqE8/видео.html. Great video about this forgotten interceptor.
@@petesheppard1709Just watched an interview with a F-5 pilot(I think Pakistani, but not sure) and he had stated the F-5 was remarkably unmanuverable .. can’t remember exactly where I saw this
The possible reason Vietnamese pilots broke the engagement could be most likely they were flying Mig-21 PFL (Izdelie-76) which 921 FR was armed since1966 This modification carries only 2 K-13 no cannon or gun pod After they fired their missiles the Vietnamize fighters were simply unarmed.
F-102s also fought F-5s over the Mediterranean in the 1974 Cyprus War, and it lost that battle too; 1 loss, no kills. The F-102's entire air-to-air combat record consisted only of being shot-down by smaller and more agile fighters built for the Close Air Combat role.
The F-102 did not live up to expectations. It was underpowered and an inefficient body design. But it was was leaps and bounds faster than the F-89 and F-94 for air defense. The F-102's design flaws weren't corrected until they developed F-106 as the replacement. The F-106 was faster, more maneuverable, and had better range.
@@ironroad18 The F-106 had worse attrition than the F-102, with 40% of the fleet lost in accidents(30% of all F-102s were lost in accidents, which itself is extremely steep attrition), despite a fraction of the number being built, no combat deployments, no export sales, and an operational service span that never even hit the 30-year mark.
To put a 40% attrition rate into context, 30% of all F-102s were lost in accidents, which itself is extremely steep attrition, and is the same attrition rate as the AV-8B Harrier II, the most dangerous aircraft to fly currently in service with the US military.
Let's also consider the F-106's mishap rate per 100,000 flight hours in context with some other relevant aircraft;
F-102: 13.69
F-106: 10.2
AV-8B: 11.4
F-5: 8.82
A-7D: 5.7
A-10: 1.9
F-14: 5.93
F-15: 2.93
F-16: 3.38
F-18: 4.95
F-22: 6.1
JAS-39: 2.6
A guy that I flew RC with back in the late 70’s had to eject out of an F102 in 1959 or 60 iirc. He landed in a farmer’s field in North Carolina. It was winter time with snow on the ground. The violence of the ejection injured his spine which he was able to overcome and stay on flight status but by the time I met him his back was causing him a lot of pain. Iirc they used a 20mm blank to propel the seat out of the plane which had an abrupt high G acceleration leading to injuries being the norm.
He said he got a fire light on the instrument panel, looked in the rear view mirror and saw the whole back of the airplane engulfed in flames. The plane had already rolled inverted before he could initiate the ejection sequence. FOD was blamed.
@@BlacktailDefense @BlacktailDefense consider the Air National Guard held on to their F-106s till 1988, the aircraft had a decent service record.
Many jet aircraft of the "Century Series" and the early Cold War period had atrocious accident rates. The F-8 Crusader had one of the worst, along with the F-100, F-101, and F-104. *F-100s and 104s had solid reputations as "window makers" in the USAF and NATO.
The F-106 was a pure interceptor and leaps and bounds above the F-102 in every way (106 was supposed have been what the 102 was promised to be on paper). For top speed it was on par with the F-4 and only the F-15 was just barely faster when configured for a testing and R&D role.
@2:00 These planes were MiG21PF with a larger hump and larger air intake, the second generation of MiG21 modified from MiG21F-13. The North Vietnamese has quite advanced version of MiG21s outside the Soviet Union, matching the Warsaw pact countries at that time late 1960s.
Also, most importantly, no guns on the PF, just the 2 missiles, which is why they disengaged.
So glad I found this fine channel. But being an aviation geek of course I have to nitpick. The plan view shown at 3:20 is an F-106, not a Deuce. The intake locations are the easy giveaway.
This is a brilliantly researched video with a strong analysis. Thank you very much.
Had the F-5s been used to be what it was clearly meant to do, that is, to slug it out in a dogfight with the MiG-21s and the other Russian birds or anyone's birds chances are the -21s would not have fared as well as they did as they also had to deal with Phantoms and Crusaders. The -21 was faster and all but the F-5 was even more nimble ,a bit smaller and lighter and could pack a great punch as well not to mention the insane reliability rate of that awesome little bird. Besides no dogfight is ever carried out at supersonic speeds. A shame the USAF never used them for that purpose it would've been a feisty opponent (and still is to this day). The Deuce was never designed for air-to-air anyway.
Top Gun Tomcats can attest to that.
" The F-5 was murderously hard to see until it was right on top of you. "
Also two cannons.
They wanted the F-20 Tigershark, not the F-16N.
I saw a delta dagger in person the other day. The cockpit portion is really pointy and angular. It’s pretty crazy.
F-102 and F-106 jocks were always very vocal about the Falcon AAM claiming the Hughes fire control was very effective in combat. But the reality was that out of 54 missiles launched in Vietnam, only 5 kills all against MiG-17 were recorded.
I think the problem was much more with the Falcons than with the Fire Control System. The FCS was very capable of getting the aircraft into a launch position but after the missiles left the rails it was mostly on them.
@@billkunert7281 Your name is familiar were you interested plastic modeling? I read the F-106 guys said the lack of success on the F-4 Phantom was that the F-4 didn't have a dedicated fire control. But there is no doubt the Sidewinder was the nuch superior missile.
If the F-102 had been equipped with a gun and better missiles it could have been quite effective. If was quite maneuverable although not nearly as fast as it's F-106 cousin. This was not as bad a matchup as one would think. In this matchup the lack of familiarity with the F-102 worked to the F-102's advantage to some degree.
Great stuff again. Assuming you have plenty of material I'd love to see more stuff on early migs in combat worldwide.
Do you have any info of the F104 and the mig 21 fighting each other in vietnam? Btw excellent video.
I am actually working on that at the moment as I'd like to do an 'alternative history' in which the USAF doesn't get the Phantom and has to rely on F-104 for air superiority...
I watched two video segments so far and I am very impressed with the stories that you have been telling with him. Keep up the good work. You have a new subscriber.
I guess you know by now that you have shown the area rule F-106 in the illustration at 3:20?
Your illustrations are very good.
The effort for integrity by comparing multiple resources is commendable.
Excellent information I like non biased informative videos about minor stuff
No G-suit equipped on the 102
Interceptors. Not a bad idea, really. When most of these planes were conceived the air-to-air missiles that eventually took over that role were still a pipe dream. What amazes me is how well various air forces adapted them to more useful mid- to late 1960s actual missions.
The F-102 was the exception to the rule. The F-104 I think is the star of the show: an air-to-air missile using a human pilot’s brain as a guidance system, speed and climb rate being the primary goals. The West German Navy successfully adapted them to low-level surveillance and anti-shipping roles while Lockheed figured out how to keep them from falling out of the sky. No question that the Intruder would have been much better for the job, but the Germans took the plane fate dropped in their laps and made it work for the missions they actually had.
The Starfighter was actually well suited to low level attacks as it's high wing loading made for very comfortable ride for long duration flights on or near the deck. That being said, as it was a "hot ship" the pilot needed to respect the aircraft in such an environment. Many of the Luftwaffe pilots lost in 104 accidents were pushing the aircraft to the outer edge of the envelope.
I mean, Ngyuen Van Coc and Pham Thanh Ngan, were two of the leading MiG-21 aces, with 9 and 8 claimed victories between them. I know maybe only seven of Coc's victories match US records and six of Ngan's, but they were capable and dangerous pilots. I am surprised as well that they didn't take the advantage of the situation. Later on, in 1972, the two MiG-21 aces with victories that match US records, Nguyen Duc Soat and Nguyen Tien Sam, I think would have.
Interesting video. I loaded many AIM-4 Falcon practice missles on F-4D's at Eglin in 1967-68. In Korat Thailand our F-4E's Mig CAP missions were armed with 4 sidewinders and 4 Sparrows along with 2.75 rockets and CBU's. Some time in 1969 a 102 was in a hanger next to our weapons loading shop. I always wondered where it came from because it was painted in camophage colors. An aircraft mechanic told me it flamed out 20 miles from the base and glided with a dead stick landing.
At 9:33 and 9:43....that's an F-106
these videos are consistently excellent, thank you!
*Just 'found' your channel - The content coverage & analysis is superb*
BUT If you're aiming to become one of the star providers suggest you chekc your voiceover work & lop out the 'Ums' and restarts of words which are unnoticed in convesational speach but a bit jarring in such a good narrative.
I think in 1968 put MiG-21PFs for Vietnam. They did not have a gun and, as a consequence, the ability to fire after two missiles starts. After there were MiG-21PFMs with a 23mm gun pod for 200 rounds and as many as four K-13 missiles (AIM-9B clone), not two. After MiG-21F-13 with a built-in 30-mm gun, but only for 30 (!) rounds.
MiG-21 Pigeons of Peace against Daggers.
References:
Page 144 of Marshall Michel's book Clashes he writes
"F-102 usually used for tanker escort"
Does not specifically say what type of aircraft the 2 F-102s were escorting that day.
Please stop using "gamerspeak" to describe the Sukoi Su-7. It is, and never was prounounced "Sue". It is a "Ess You" seven.
If Su is "Ess you" then Mig is "Em Eye Gee"
It's pronounced similar to "Sue". It's written as "Су" and it comes from "Сухой" - Sukhoi. Only english speakers call it "Ess you".
@@ГеоргийМурзич In western usage MiG and Yak have always been used as prefixes. However, "Sue" for Sukoi is a recent devoplment attributied to gamers. A Chinese JF-7 is aften refered to as a "Jeff" in gamer-speak.
@@electricspeedkiller8950 Cool. I am an English speaker.
Convair's F-102 interceptors were purchased in large numbers by the USAF while remembering WW-2 tactics. Bombers were now faster. Therefore the escorts had to be faster. And the interceptors of enemy bombers had to be faster as well. So F-102s certainly were faster than Bear Bombers. However, both Korea and Vietnam were quite different wars than most of the second world war. On the ground it was difficult to know who the enemy was. They didn't necessarily wear uniforms. But F-102s were not particularly suited for Vietnam. But the force had so many of them, with their crews, it probably was someone's "bright idea" to use them in that theatre.
F-4s, with their J-79 turbojets, had superior climb and acceleration than the '02s. But even those had no machine guns until later in their use in that war. But F-106s were immensely fast birds apparently not used much in Vietnam. But even so, they weren't well suited for that engagement. But dog fights have very little purpose if those machines had little capability to attack the ground. Why shoot an air-to-air fighter if there is no bomber being escorted. But there were times when B-52s, and perhaps B-47s were part of the offensive teams. But 1-fully loaded F-16 with both air and ground attack facility could have caused the enemy to think twice about engagement. But... they weren't invented yet.
My father was there at the time. I'm very fuzzy on the exact details, as he has only spoken about it once and was very evasive and vague on details (and was influenced by alcohol)...and I was very young at the time.
He was also in one of the 102's that was lost...shortly after take off, Bien Hoa. He said it's suspected it threw a compressor blade. Ejected and was recovered safely in VC held territory just outside the airfield. My "Uncle" Terry Clark, my father's squadron mate and life-long best friend had been in the tower at the time, and had an amazing copy of the audio....from the take off permission, to an F105 pilot lined up as number 2 for take-off behind him radioing him and the tower that he was on fire, to the call and permission to eject. Somewhere, he has pictures of the aircraft crash site taken by a recovery team (basically just a big, black hole with tiny twisted bits..pretty much zero to look at, unless you are a charred hole in the ground aficionado)
The 509th has a couple pilots with multiple Distinguished Flying Cross awards for some extraordinary acts of bravery and heroism.
I have quite a few photos of my father, including squadron photos Capt. Clark Lomax, and Wally Wiggins.
Thank you immensely for your interest,and amazing research, and information on the relatively minor incident (in the full scheme of the war)...and for shedding some light on something that has been a life long and unspoken about mystery to me about my father's life.
Cheers and keep up the incredible work!
To believe in someone, you are convinced that they are true. If you believe in Jesus Christ, you will be Saved by Grace Alone, John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, NKJV.
Not a Pound, there is a new book by a Vietnamese author that documents all the dogfights in that war using the Vietnamese pilot’s after-action reports. It is “Combat in the Sky”, by Dong Sy Hung, published by Naval Institute Press.
Wonderful video as always. If I may suggest a video, the topic of Mig21s fighting F104s in 1971 would be cool
3:15 ...that's not a F-102 on the picture, it's a F-106, the improved successor...!
Upon re-watch, I think I'm gonna go with the fact that the North Vietnamese pilots were unfamiliar with the F-102 being the most likely reason for them not pressing the attack. Having been in a few threat briefings myself, I doubt it got more than a cursory mention.
Given that it's really not that good and the F-106 was well in service by this time I can't even begin to fathom why the F-102s were even in Vietnam at this time.
most likely the reason the Migs bugged out was that they weren't sure what they were facing and what capabilities the 102s were and I'll also guess they were told by the ground controllers get out now
Nice vid. Though don't know why you interspersed 102/106 pictures and videos.
I remember seeing the F-102D the improve version the slender ones in Clark Airbase in mid-1960 the were withdrawn at the 70s'
Minor correction: the MiG-21 Fishbed made use of a 23mm autocannon with 200 rounds per gun but with the MiG-21bis model, as far as I know.
Hey - thanks for the comment. This was something that occupied a lot more time than I expected when I was making the video! My conclusion (and I'm happy to be corrected) is that the VPAF mainly flew the first generation MiG-21F-13. This had a single 30mm NR-30 cannon and 60 rounds.
The VPAF also had a small number of the second generation MiG-21PF, which didn't have an internal gun but could carry a pod with a 23mm. Final generation MiG-21s reintroduced an internal 23mm, but North Vietnam didn't have any of those.
@@notapound You're WELCOME but forgive me for saying so but the earliest model of the MiG-21 Fishbed, like its American counterparts, didn't have a gun because the Soviets at that time also believed that guns would be obsolete at Mach 2. It would take their being whipped by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War to start fitting a 23mm autocannons to their Fishbeds but since you mentioned the 30mm NR-30 autocannon, that was most likely fitted on the Sukhoi Su-7 Fitter, the Soviets' answer to the Republic F-105 Thunderchief. Hope this helps! If you have any doubts, feel free to look them up! ENJOY!
F-102 was a '1 trick pony' totally out of its element. It was a good interceptor, but not a great interceptor.
Good reporting and I agree the Delta Daggers didn't know about the attack, and yes the MIG's were faced with fuel and their approach doctrine to a dogfight. I'm surprised the MIG's didn't use guns.
The early missiles such as the Falcon and the 'B' Sidewinder were not effective weapons, due to many diverse reasons. Oddly enough, ground mis-handling was one of them.
There are some somewhat funny accounts of AIM-7s being sent to be calibrated at an off-base facility and then rattled back to the base on a dirt road in the back of a truck. Having been bounced around like that, they came back no better than they started.
@@notapound Brilliant!
Bloody hell...who taught you how to speak?
Thanks. Felt like I was having a stroke.
3:23 pretty sure the diagram/blueprint here is an F-106 and not a 102. Look at the tapered fuselage and the location of the inlets
Your v.o.’s been a little rough lately, podna. ESP this and the Australian RAAF video, FYI. Just record your VO calmly with Rolling Time Code and your script in front of you, go paragraph by paragraph so when you screw up you can re read it and write down the out point and circle the TC at the good take next to each paragraph. This is called the “circled take”, you can circle the paragraph or line and write the TC next to it. It’s easy. Slow goin’ gets it done.
The MIG-21 is not a long range fighter. After using up their missiles, they will need to head home or risk crashing due to out of fuel.
good channel, surprised they have not got more subscribers
Thanks! I’ve only recently focused on this properly. Previously had too much variety and not enough quality… I’m working on the latter and fortunately have had many many helpful comments to get things on track. It’s been a fun learning process so far.
Thanks again for the comment. Appreciate you taking the time.
I casually predict that this Channel will have 20-30K subscribers in 12 months.
Apparently the script writer never saw the movie BAT-21
Does anybody know where the video from 6:25 is from?
Looks like Robin Olds there at 12.55. Rest in peace.
The picture @ 3:21 is labeled F-102A yet the picture shows an F-106… Note the Coke bottle fuselage and the position of the intakes
The 102A also had the Whitcomb area rule (coke bottle) fuselage. It's the only reason the 102 could go supersonic. The origina 102 didn't have it and was much slower.
This is all very sad.
(Cannot make out what you are saying at times. Stammering here and there.)
The F-102 had a 15,000 pound thrust J57 engine. What they should really have used as a dogfighter was the Voodoo, which had two of them, or the Dart.
Delta winged aircraft bleed off energy fast in sustained turns. Their wings are large paddles.
However, the Israelis used their Mirage 3s, which had only 13,000 pounds thrust, quite successfully. Kfirs too.
The Dart had a superior coke bottle fuselage. with a 24,500 pound thrust J75 and later, an M61. It should have been sent there, not the Dagger.
The Voodoo had too many flight restrictions to dogfight. Plus it had a higher wing loading than the 105, which was no dogfighter, either.
Well made video of an interesting topic! Earned a subscription!
Top down picture at. 3.30 minute is F- 106 Delta Dart.
The F-102 was a good target drone, that's about it.
The F-102 was an all weather interceptor that did not work in the rain.
Your narration keeps stuttering or tripping over itself. Are you trying to read too fast, or don’t you have a script?
Its simple ; if ya think ya Smart , Don't think the other guy is Stoopid
More of lurker than a commenter. Your vids are excellent and well researched.
Just wanted to say I recently found this channel and have been going back and binge watching the catalogue. Definitely got a sub fro me. This comment is also here to hopefully placate the Algorithm Gods!
Thanks! Really glad you’re enjoying it! Don’t go too far back… some of the audio and production on the earlier episodes isn’t the best. I’d stop after Palmdale…
Sucks they never got sparrow and sidewinder on f106 and f102..
That is the issue if you have bays that limit missile shape, F-35 and F-22 suffer similar issues.
Not a period of air warfare I'm interested in but, thank you, for a well constructed, reasoned and informative video. I'll check in again for more.
Is that major then later colonel Al Lomax? I think that he was my dads fishing buddy back when I was a kid!
It is! This is an awesome comment! Thanks :).
I believe The sidewinder had a bottle that was screwed into the side before take off to add the coolant
So by 1968 the Vietnamese were using the MiG-21PF, they had only a handful of F-13s and these only had radars for gun ranging not target acquisition. I'm fairly certain this sortie was done with the MiG-21PF, which had no cannon and only carried the 2 missiles, hence why they disengaged. They were out of weapons.
Thanks for the comment. Although I can’t be sure, ‘F-102 Dagger Units’ and ‘MiG-21 Units Of The Vietnam War’ both have it as the F-13. In the former account, they suggest that Lomax saw cannon fire. Because I couldn’t corroborate it I didn’t include that detail.
Honestly though, I did mull that possibility over and should, in hindsight probably given it a minute in the video. Thanks again for the comment and the insight!
@strategyfromtherightbrain So i checked my source, which is MiG-21 aces of the vietnam war, and I believe it's the same author István Toperczer of MiG 21 units of the vietnam war, but authors do also make mistakes, so it might have conflicting info. Anyway on page 109 it specifies the kill credited to MiG-21PFM fishbed F 5030 of Pham Thamnh Ngma of 921 FR on Feb 3, 1968.
The PFM indeed had no cannon and only the 2 missile pylons.