F－15原来也被F－104 KO过

大家娱乐地读着玩。

"When the F-15 training operation began at Luke in the latter 70s, the initial squadron was the 555th, known as 'the Nickle'. Sometime in 78 or so, the Nickle guys were looking for DACT with a variety of fighter types, and so they came down the street to the F-104 Fighter Weapons School in the 69TFTS, also at Luke.

They wanted to fly against us, and so we agreed to put up a two ship for a trial mission. Two FWS instructors were selected, one a German instructor (Hartmut Troehler) and one USAF instructor (me).

The Nickle hosted the mission. We briefed at their squadron with two of their instructors (both F-4 FWS grads). They were going to use the two seat model for the engagement. We would both have dedicated GCI. We were to simulate Floggers...not a bad idea since the G model that we flew was a good representation of the A2A capability of the MiG-23. Our simulated armament was to be Apex, Aphid, and the gun.

After the main briefing, Hartmut and I had our own briefing. I was the flight lead and intended to use as much deception as I could. We knew that the F-15 guys were really proud of their radar capabilities...the PD radar was new to the fighter community at that time. I thought that the two Nickle guys would be heavily relying on their radar to enter the fight...as it turned out, I was right.

My plan was to put Hartmut in close formation and run head on at the F-15 using GCI for vectoring. Our radar could search out to 40nm but we couldn't lock on until 20nm.

We took the first GCI vector and accelerated through the mach. Intended to fight fast...high speed extensions and hook turns. At 20nm, the F-15 made a large blip on my radar and I was able to get a lock. The plan was to Fox-1 at about 16nm and then have Hartmut peel off into a hard 360 to follow me.

I called the Apex at 16nm, told Hartmut to deploy, and then pushed it up to over 700KIAS. My hope was that the Eagle guys would hold their lock on me and not see Hartmut separate. We could slave our gunsight to the radar lock on angle...this let me fly right at the F-15. I picked him up visually...he was high, to the right, and had started a conversion turn. I unloaded, and extended away figuring they would try to follow...and they did.

What that did, of course, was get them sandwiched between me and Hartmut. My guess was that they would get all excited and jump on me without asking where my wingman was. They found out soon enough as their GCI relayed to them Hartmut's gun attack call.

I was looking back and saw their break turn that resulted. I went idle and boards, slowed to .85M, dropped my maneuver flaps, put my lift vector on the Eagle and then pulled the jet into a hard 7g turn using burner to hold my speed. I knew I could sustain that g at around 400KIAS.

I pulled into a lead snapshot position on the Eagle, closed in and went guns. The Eagle broke again as their GCI relayed the second gun call.

By this time, Hartmut was pitching back into the fight. He saw me extend away, went in for his second gun attack, and then extended away after me. I tallyed him, gave him a check turn to put us back into line abreast and then we became a dot.

The Eagle tried to call a Fox-2 as we separated but with us well over 700KIAS, it was way out of parameters.

The result was the two Fox-1s and three unobserved gun kills by us. They had no valid shots.

The debriefing was a hoot. I especially liked the part where the Nickle guy played his recorder and we heard the backseater say "Break, we just got gunned again"!

Of course, all of this should not have happened. The F-15 should have had us for lunch. But they didn't, and it was all because they didn't play to their strengths...and they severely underestimated their opponents. They didn't do that again and that was a good thing."

When it came to two-ship tactical formations, the USAF flew Fluid Two, the USN flew Loose Deuce, and others flew Double Attack. These concepts were very similar and differed primarily in how much freedom the flight lead gave the wingman. In each concept, the maneuver flow emphasized unilateral decisions and separate flight paths to gain a common goal. The radio was crucial in maintaining situational awareness and mutual support. These concepts did away with the WW2 and Korean War formations where the wingmen remained tied to the leader.

"Fighting in the vertical" is nothing new to the 104...it's been around since the beginning in WW1. People use the vertical when they have an energy advantage over their opponent...and so the tactic may or may not be applicable depending on the capabilities and numbers of the enemy. It requires a higher level of proficiency and experience and may be extremely effective when the opponent has neither.

Agility is very situational...one may be agile compared to one opponent and then be a slug when compared to another. When compared to other 60s era fighters, the 104 was comparable above 400KIAS and below 15000'. If a 104 pilot tried to slow down below 400KIAS and engage in a horizontal fight, he would usually end up the loser simply because so many of the other fighters of that era had a better slow speed turning capability. When flying F-4s in Holland, we used to engage 104s frequently, and I can remember some of the 104 pilots trying to fight us with their landing flaps down. Later, when I checked out in the 104, I learned how really dumb than was...the full flap position was meant for landing and nothing else...a 104 with full flaps down was an unmaneuverable strafe rag.

I never flew the 104 at high altitude. I expect its agility there to be as good as or better as long as one kept the speed up in that part of the envelope. Walt's earlier version with the better maneuver flap restrictions would have been much better than a standard G model.  

quote:Pilots Walt Bjorneby and Andy Bush:

Walt wrote:

"Okay, here goes. IMHO the only fighter back then that could give the 104 a fight was the F8 Crusader. I am sure the EE Lightning would be a real competitor but never even saw one. But when the Dash19 J79 was installed in the 104A it could easily wax the F8. The 106 was a good opponent until he quickly ran out of speed (delta wing drag) and fuel (J75 in AB). The F4 was mean at Sparrow ranges but in close going vertical ate him up. Note that the 104A maneuver flap speed limits were M1.8/550KIAS whichever was first. Using maneuver (takeoff) flaps made it about equal to the F4 in corner velocity. Kept the left hand busy - AB for accell, out of AB and select maneuver flaps for turn, straighten out, AB again, flaps up, zero G for more speed, then turn again and same all over again. Never got to go against an F15 however. Would have been interesting. One of the Zipper's advantages was that it was very hard to see coming in. And now and then we would paint those white wings grey with water-base tempera as an addded 'gouge'. Head on good eyes could see it at 3 miles on a clear day - not much time to react when it's coming in at 1.4 (3B engine) or 1.6+ (-19). Like to see one reengined with a good turbofan with AB and F16 radar + RHAW gear. Still what I consider to be one of the best examples of sophisticated engineering. Difficult problems solved simply and efficiently, rather than same old same old assisted by huge engines.

In the Zipper. One thing most people don't realize is that takeoff flaps could be used up to 550KIAS/1,8M. Using T/O flaps put the corner velocity down to about 425 IAS on a par with the F4. We used them very flexibly as they acted fast. Out for turn or pullup, in for accel, etc. Same with AB; off for high G, back on for accel. We used modified 'loose deuce' tactics beginning in '65 since we were deployed as pairs rather than a flight of four. I do not know of any contemporay airplane that could stay with our re-engined 104s - same engine that went into the 104S except we were about 3000-3500 pounds lighter weight. I suppose the F22 or MiG29 could out-accel the little bird but M2.0 from M0.9 in 27 miles/1'45"/1000# fuel was pretty darned good for 1967. Attain and maintain M 1.05 cruise in non-AB, scheduled 1+30 training missions without external tanks, and an availability rate exceeding 90% speaks well for Lockheed, Kelly Johnson and GE. Just wish Kelly had been able to build the CL1200 Lancer.

Andy wrote:

Walt has it right...the 104 had a credible turn capability when using the maneuver flap position. I flew the jet at TOPGUN in '78 when we wanted to verify some energy maneuverability data against the F-5E. We all were surprised when the 'numbers' worked out as well as they did. In addition, I have also flown the 'hard wing' and slatted versions of the F-4 and am familiar with the relative performance comparisons between the two a/c."  

quote:I was in the 319th FIS flying the F104A; friends of mine were in the 479th TFW flying the C model. I can confirm both outfits did use DACT (loose deuce) and emphasized use of the vertical. 319th was an Air Defense unit and primarily flew in pairs, thus 'loose deuce' was a natural choice. Our A models after mod had the G flap limits; 1.8M or 550KIAS. Thus we could actually out-turn F4s in level flight, that is, until they got the new slats, in which case we went vertical and ran them out of fuel because of the extra drag when their slats extended and they had to use lots of AB to keep their energy up. They got a lower corner velocity; we got the J79-19 engine and a LOT more Ps. 大家娱乐地读着玩。

"When the F-15 training operation began at Luke in the latter 70s, the initial squadron was the 555th, known as 'the Nickle'. Sometime in 78 or so, the Nickle guys were looking for DACT with a variety of fighter types, and so they came down the street to the F-104 Fighter Weapons School in the 69TFTS, also at Luke.

They wanted to fly against us, and so we agreed to put up a two ship for a trial mission. Two FWS instructors were selected, one a German instructor (Hartmut Troehler) and one USAF instructor (me).

The Nickle hosted the mission. We briefed at their squadron with two of their instructors (both F-4 FWS grads). They were going to use the two seat model for the engagement. We would both have dedicated GCI. We were to simulate Floggers...not a bad idea since the G model that we flew was a good representation of the A2A capability of the MiG-23. Our simulated armament was to be Apex, Aphid, and the gun.

After the main briefing, Hartmut and I had our own briefing. I was the flight lead and intended to use as much deception as I could. We knew that the F-15 guys were really proud of their radar capabilities...the PD radar was new to the fighter community at that time. I thought that the two Nickle guys would be heavily relying on their radar to enter the fight...as it turned out, I was right.

My plan was to put Hartmut in close formation and run head on at the F-15 using GCI for vectoring. Our radar could search out to 40nm but we couldn't lock on until 20nm.

We took the first GCI vector and accelerated through the mach. Intended to fight fast...high speed extensions and hook turns. At 20nm, the F-15 made a large blip on my radar and I was able to get a lock. The plan was to Fox-1 at about 16nm and then have Hartmut peel off into a hard 360 to follow me.

I called the Apex at 16nm, told Hartmut to deploy, and then pushed it up to over 700KIAS. My hope was that the Eagle guys would hold their lock on me and not see Hartmut separate. We could slave our gunsight to the radar lock on angle...this let me fly right at the F-15. I picked him up visually...he was high, to the right, and had started a conversion turn. I unloaded, and extended away figuring they would try to follow...and they did.

What that did, of course, was get them sandwiched between me and Hartmut. My guess was that they would get all excited and jump on me without asking where my wingman was. They found out soon enough as their GCI relayed to them Hartmut's gun attack call.

I was looking back and saw their break turn that resulted. I went idle and boards, slowed to .85M, dropped my maneuver flaps, put my lift vector on the Eagle and then pulled the jet into a hard 7g turn using burner to hold my speed. I knew I could sustain that g at around 400KIAS.

I pulled into a lead snapshot position on the Eagle, closed in and went guns. The Eagle broke again as their GCI relayed the second gun call.

By this time, Hartmut was pitching back into the fight. He saw me extend away, went in for his second gun attack, and then extended away after me. I tallyed him, gave him a check turn to put us back into line abreast and then we became a dot.

The Eagle tried to call a Fox-2 as we separated but with us well over 700KIAS, it was way out of parameters.

The result was the two Fox-1s and three unobserved gun kills by us. They had no valid shots.

The debriefing was a hoot. I especially liked the part where the Nickle guy played his recorder and we heard the backseater say "Break, we just got gunned again"!

Of course, all of this should not have happened. The F-15 should have had us for lunch. But they didn't, and it was all because they didn't play to their strengths...and they severely underestimated their opponents. They didn't do that again and that was a good thing."

When it came to two-ship tactical formations, the USAF flew Fluid Two, the USN flew Loose Deuce, and others flew Double Attack. These concepts were very similar and differed primarily in how much freedom the flight lead gave the wingman. In each concept, the maneuver flow emphasized unilateral decisions and separate flight paths to gain a common goal. The radio was crucial in maintaining situational awareness and mutual support. These concepts did away with the WW2 and Korean War formations where the wingmen remained tied to the leader.

"Fighting in the vertical" is nothing new to the 104...it's been around since the beginning in WW1. People use the vertical when they have an energy advantage over their opponent...and so the tactic may or may not be applicable depending on the capabilities and numbers of the enemy. It requires a higher level of proficiency and experience and may be extremely effective when the opponent has neither.

Agility is very situational...one may be agile compared to one opponent and then be a slug when compared to another. When compared to other 60s era fighters, the 104 was comparable above 400KIAS and below 15000'. If a 104 pilot tried to slow down below 400KIAS and engage in a horizontal fight, he would usually end up the loser simply because so many of the other fighters of that era had a better slow speed turning capability. When flying F-4s in Holland, we used to engage 104s frequently, and I can remember some of the 104 pilots trying to fight us with their landing flaps down. Later, when I checked out in the 104, I learned how really dumb than was...the full flap position was meant for landing and nothing else...a 104 with full flaps down was an unmaneuverable strafe rag.

I never flew the 104 at high altitude. I expect its agility there to be as good as or better as long as one kept the speed up in that part of the envelope. Walt's earlier version with the better maneuver flap restrictions would have been much better than a standard G model.  

quote:Pilots Walt Bjorneby and Andy Bush:

Walt wrote:

"Okay, here goes. IMHO the only fighter back then that could give the 104 a fight was the F8 Crusader. I am sure the EE Lightning would be a real competitor but never even saw one. But when the Dash19 J79 was installed in the 104A it could easily wax the F8. The 106 was a good opponent until he quickly ran out of speed (delta wing drag) and fuel (J75 in AB). The F4 was mean at Sparrow ranges but in close going vertical ate him up. Note that the 104A maneuver flap speed limits were M1.8/550KIAS whichever was first. Using maneuver (takeoff) flaps made it about equal to the F4 in corner velocity. Kept the left hand busy - AB for accell, out of AB and select maneuver flaps for turn, straighten out, AB again, flaps up, zero G for more speed, then turn again and same all over again. Never got to go against an F15 however. Would have been interesting. One of the Zipper's advantages was that it was very hard to see coming in. And now and then we would paint those white wings grey with water-base tempera as an addded 'gouge'. Head on good eyes could see it at 3 miles on a clear day - not much time to react when it's coming in at 1.4 (3B engine) or 1.6+ (-19). Like to see one reengined with a good turbofan with AB and F16 radar + RHAW gear. Still what I consider to be one of the best examples of sophisticated engineering. Difficult problems solved simply and efficiently, rather than same old same old assisted by huge engines.

In the Zipper. One thing most people don't realize is that takeoff flaps could be used up to 550KIAS/1,8M. Using T/O flaps put the corner velocity down to about 425 IAS on a par with the F4. We used them very flexibly as they acted fast. Out for turn or pullup, in for accel, etc. Same with AB; off for high G, back on for accel. We used modified 'loose deuce' tactics beginning in '65 since we were deployed as pairs rather than a flight of four. I do not know of any contemporay airplane that could stay with our re-engined 104s - same engine that went into the 104S except we were about 3000-3500 pounds lighter weight. I suppose the F22 or MiG29 could out-accel the little bird but M2.0 from M0.9 in 27 miles/1'45"/1000# fuel was pretty darned good for 1967. Attain and maintain M 1.05 cruise in non-AB, scheduled 1+30 training missions without external tanks, and an availability rate exceeding 90% speaks well for Lockheed, Kelly Johnson and GE. Just wish Kelly had been able to build the CL1200 Lancer.

Andy wrote:

Walt has it right...the 104 had a credible turn capability when using the maneuver flap position. I flew the jet at TOPGUN in '78 when we wanted to verify some energy maneuverability data against the F-5E. We all were surprised when the 'numbers' worked out as well as they did. In addition, I have also flown the 'hard wing' and slatted versions of the F-4 and am familiar with the relative performance comparisons between the two a/c."  

quote:I was in the 319th FIS flying the F104A; friends of mine were in the 479th TFW flying the C model. I can confirm both outfits did use DACT (loose deuce) and emphasized use of the vertical. 319th was an Air Defense unit and primarily flew in pairs, thus 'loose deuce' was a natural choice. Our A models after mod had the G flap limits; 1.8M or 550KIAS. Thus we could actually out-turn F4s in level flight, that is, until they got the new slats, in which case we went vertical and ran them out of fuel because of the extra drag when their slats extended and they had to use lots of AB to keep their energy up. They got a lower corner velocity; we got the J79-19 engine and a LOT more Ps.