The F-4 Phamton VS The Mig 17 Mig 21

C

casey jones

Charter Member
I read that the F-4 Phamton could just barely hold its own in a dog fight with the Mig 17 and or
the Mig 21. I cannot remmenber where I read this. Maybe there is someone who can clarify
this or not.

Cheers

Casey
 
The Mig-17F, Mig-19, and Mig-21 were all formidable dog fighting aircraft and with the exception of the Mig-19, easy to maintain and regenerate. Early on in the Vietnam War, our front line fighters(namely the F-4B/C/D/N/J's & F-8's) had a difficult time handling the Mig-17 and Mig-19. The Mig-17F(and 19) relied on guns only but it's turn rate in a level turn(@ corner velocity) was 4 to 5 degrees per second better than the F-4's and F-8's and in a close in full circle fight, the Mig-17 generally had the advantage(same with the Mig-19). One common tactic the NVAF used was the "Wagon Wheel" which a number of Migs would fly in a constant circle and attempt to lure our fighters into the circle where the Mig being pursued would go into burner and turn at maximum turn rate while a Mig trailing behind would engage an attacking F-4 or F-8 from behind and make a well rehearsed deflection shot with guns. However, at some point we acquired a couple of Mig-17's that were captured by Israel and we tested them extensively learning their good points(which were many) and their flaws. One test pilot made a discovery quite by accident when he pushed the Mig-17F's speed up above 500 knots to 550. He lost all elevator authority and most aileron authority due to the lack of boosted controls/control surfaces and the fact that like the early Mig-15, the 17 had a conventional elevator(non-all flying horizontal stab) that was prone to compressibility. Both the F-4 and F-8 had boosted controls and all-flying horizontal tail surfaces. From this information we developed a tactic where our F-4's and F-8's would bore into the Mig wagon wheel formations and open up their speed above 500 knots and widen their turn arcs above the Mig's corner velocity. The result was that the F-4's and F-8's still had full pitch & turning authority while the Mig-17's were essentially stuck with limited turn authority and our pilots ate them alive with that tactic. Soon afterwards, the NVAF wised up and abandoned using the wagon wheel tactic. Both the Mig-17 and 19 were especially good at rolling scissor tactics which strained the early AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles which suffered a 2 to 3 G maximum envelope. The advantage of the F-4 and F-8 was that they had much better vertical performance and if they kept the Mig-17/19 in a vertical scissor or high yo-yo maneuver sequence, they could force them to overshoot or "kick-out" (when the Mig bleed off airspeed and needed to drop off to regain airspeed), they could normally get a good lock with a Sidewinder and make the kill. The Mig-21 on the other hand carried both 23mm cannons and AA-2 IR missiles. The early AA-2 was a notoriously poor weapon but they did achieve some success with it on the Mig-21. In 1967, the USAF secretly tested a Mig-21F that was captured by Israel. From this testing, we learned how to better mitigate the Mig-21 threat in Vietnam and elsewhere. In general, the Mig-21 while agile would bleed off airspeed excessively below 400 knots and there were many other limitations but make no mistake, we learned(quite painfully) that the Migs were good aircraft and the NVAF pilots were very well trained and disciplined. We went into that conflict ill prepared in terms of the type of hardware we employed and in terms of tactics employed which were full of serious vulnerabilities that cost a high price in lives and aircraft lost.

Here's a good PDF to read about the Have Doughnut Program:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Project_have_doughnut_area51_49.pdf
 
Daube said:
The Mig-21 a dogfighting machine ? Really ?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! For the time period they were conceived, one of the most robust and greatest all around fighters. Our pilots who've flown it gave it very high marks on it's handling and many other aspects.
 
Somehow, I always thought the Mig-21 was the soviet brother of the F-104: a missile with wings, made to fly fast, but straight. Not made for dogfighting. But that was just my idea, I never really read anything about this....
The only Mig-21 models I flew in the sim were actually confirming my thoughts. The Mig-21 F-13 (for FS9, but worked well in FSX) was quite easy to stall. And the fuel consumption at low altitude was scary, so I always kept it above the 30.000 feet limit :D
 
The 'Zoom and Boom' tactic worked well for the F4, one huge problem for the early USAF and all USN versions was the lack of built in guns.
:untroubled:
 
StormILM said:
Absolutely! For the time period they were conceived, one of the most robust and greatest all around fighters. Our pilots who've flown it gave it very high marks on it's handling and many other aspects.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Anyone interested in MiGs should read Steve Davies' book "Red Eagles" http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1846039703?pc_redir=1399688646&robot_redir=1

It's the account of the CIA/USAF/USN's MiG acquisition and exploitation programme. How they'd select leading pilots - most if them former USAF Aggressors - and train them to fly the MiG 17/21/23. The main idea being to then give other pilots outside the programme exposures to flying against real MiGs.

The '21 is featured heavily - as it was the most numerous in the programmes inventory - a good couple dozen by the time the programme ended in 1988. It was also the key model due to its ACM capabilities - and especially in the lower speed regimes - routinely routed pilots during these exposure / mock dogfights. It's the principle reason why the F-5E -itself an excellent ACM fighter - was chosen as the training tool for the more run-of-the-mill MiG emulation applications such as USAF Aggressors, USN TOP GUN, RED FLAG, etc.

The '23 (variable-sweep wings notwithstanding) had the more straight and fast, poor turn traits described above. It was hated by almost every single of the US pilots that flew it - but the '21 was unanimously praised by both the programme's pilots and those who flew against it during the exposure training flights.

A great book - I borrowed a copy from the local public library.

cheers,

DL
 
The F-4 can hold its own against anything as long as the pilot tries to fight it out in the vertical plane. Two J-79s and a pretty good wing work wonders against a single R-13 and a delta or a VK-1 and some early generation wing.



Daube said:
Somehow, I always thought the Mig-21 was the soviet brother of the F-104: a missile with wings, made to fly fast, but straight. Not made for dogfighting. But that was just my idea, I never really read anything about this....
The only Mig-21 models I flew in the sim were actually confirming my thoughts. The Mig-21 F-13 (for FS9, but worked well in FSX) was quite easy to stall. And the fuel consumption at low altitude was scary, so I always kept it above the 30.000 feet limit :D
Click to expand...

Just look at a Fishbed's wings and you'll note that they're much larger than a F-104s. More wing area means lower wing loading and thus higher maneuverability. That's probably also the reason why the F-104, with its high wing loading, became the fighter bomber of choice for many a nation's air force.
Highly swept wings have notoriously poor low speed handling, hence the high stall speed and fancy stuff like boundary layer control for the flaps.
 
Thank You Storm For A Great Imput

Thank You Storm and All for this great learning imput I have the DVD series "DogFighters" I recommend
it for all interested in the F-4.


Cheers

Casey
 
Daube said:
Somehow, I always thought the Mig-21 was the soviet brother of the F-104: a missile with wings, made to fly fast, but straight. Not made for dogfighting. But that was just my idea, I never really read anything about this....
The only Mig-21 models I flew in the sim were actually confirming my thoughts. The Mig-21 F-13 (for FS9, but worked well in FSX) was quite easy to stall. And the fuel consumption at low altitude was scary, so I always kept it above the 30.000 feet limit :D
Click to expand...
You're assuming the flight models as delivered are at all accurate. Without stepping on any developer's toes -- including the one's I've worked for -- can count few fighters "out of the box" in FS9/FSX that don't stall after two tight turns unless you are flying with AB to keep up the energy. And then you burn up all your fuel.
:ernaehrung004:
 
That is just in a turning fight, and almost entirely due to weight. The F-4 was heavy. The Fresco was not.


But the Fresco could only dream of having the power, speed and weapons systems of the F-4. That's why they still lost.
 
The final tally was 193 combined US Aerial Victories to 89 for the NVAF. Sure, we came out ahead but the overall ratio was not as good as we did in Korea or WW2. I've heard our Fighter Aces of the War say it, we did very poorly overall and didn't turn things around until well into the conflict. They credit the NVAF for not abandoning solid basic dogfighting technique when we allowed "ivory tower" decision making to conclude the age of the dogfight was over and that guided missiles made such techniques obsolete. Maybe if we had the Air to Air Weapons we have today(which essentially makes a Merge a fatal mistake) but back then, missiles were in their infancy and it showed. Fighter design since that era reflects on those hard lessons learned.
 
I do have a diagram and break of the what known as the longest and dynamic jet to jet dogfight - F4 versus Mig17, Lt Randy Cunningham and the suppose Col Toon, I'll dig it up and scan and post.
 
Including the words 'F4 Phantom' and 'Dogfighter' in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
Much as I love the old 'Tomb' I'll never regard her as a turning and burning platform, she proved the old homily that if you stick enough power on a breeze block it WILL fly.
:very_drunk:
 
wombat666 said:
Including the words 'F4 Phantom' and 'Dogfighter' in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
Much as I love the old 'Tomb' I'll never regard her as a turning and burning platform, she proved the old homily that if you stick enough power on a breeze block it WILL fly.
:very_drunk:
Click to expand...

It is a "burn-only" aircraft, actually. The fuel consumption is hideous.
 
What the F-4 had with its power and speed (over the MiG-17) was the option to seperate from the fight, extend/escape and come back to the fight at its choosing. Basically most of the turning fights we got into were because the pilot remained to fight. They didn't get to choose very much about the engagements but when to start them -- that's why they preferred to make quick sneak attacks and run down into the fog. The MiG-21s were even worse, typically making one pass at a formation and running. The MiG-21s were treated as treasured possessions to the NVAF.
 
gradyhappyg said:
Isn't the F4 vs Mig battles one of the key reasons the Top Gun program was started?
Click to expand...

More or less - it related more generally to the USN's performance in A2A engagements, but certainly the F-4 was a factor.

Yet it wasn't as if there was no training such concept prior - the USN's FAGU (Fleet Air Gunnery Unit) concept preceded Top Gun, to the extent that certain pilots went through intensive ACM training. That went on hiatus when as with most air arms, the USN embraced a long-range missile only combat paradigm - with the results we now all know about.

It's good to keep in mind the USAF had it's own parallel/similar programme - though started after Viet Nam - in its DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) units, now more commonly known as "Aggressor" units ...

Here in Canada, 419 Sqn was tasked to provide similar experience to our pilots.

f5s2.jpg



DL
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top