yeah, kinda sad to see it go. what was even more sad was F-12 being canceled bc of vietnam
The F-12 would have been only good at intercepting bombers. The Navy already had better variants of the F-4 and the F-8 had served its use.
eh F-4 better for longer range, but issue is they couldnt bc of ROE. by the end though, they had F-14 which was definitely better
F-12 couldve been very good if it got upgraded, it could destroy targets at like 150m off ground from very high alt in prototype phase
Slatted Phantom would easily keep pace with the F-8
Yet what percent of kills it acquired were by missiles? Ppl don’t like to look at that statistic when they talk about “the last gunfighter” :)
that’s not AT ALL what happened in vietnam… the reason USA didn’t completely stomp from day 1 was because they weren’t allowed to engage without visually identifying the target because of political ramifications if they shot down friendly planes. This meant BVR was NOT POSSIBLE as a rule. It had nothing to do with tactics being bad/good in either direction. If the USA was allowed to use BVR you would have seen a very different outcome.
1 Like
I don’t know I haven’t seen a source for that.
"Although the F-8 relied on its main armament, a standard US Navy quartet of 20mm guns, its guns were involved in only three of its 19 MiG kills, with the majority being scored by AIM-9D Sidewinder missiles. The guns did not react well to the F-8 pilots’ high-speed, high-g combat maneuvering. Jammed ammunition feeds were a frustratingly common cause of missed MiG kill opportunities throughout the war. "
https://www.ospreypublishing.com/ca/osprey-blog/2023/dogfight-7-f-8-crusader-vietnam-1963-73/
The F-8 was no more a gunfighter in real life than the F-4 was.
1 Like
The 9C was barely ever mounted.The 9D was the main missile used.
The 7C did not score any kills in Vietnam.
3 Likes
u right the 77% was in testing at NAS Miramar conducted by the marines in 1964
1 Like