I flew the F-4 and (Then ) Colonel Olds was 100% right, The F-4E with the 20mm was the weapon that made the Phantom II the definitive fighter of its time. I am proud to have contact with his daughter and biographer Christine.and regret that i never got to meet him. Went from 4 to F-15. With the Vulcan Gun. (Christine, it's Vig!) Olds was the GOAT.
According to Navy pilots the gun came with a tradeoff. No Pule Doppler radar with look down/shoot down capability and the extra weight and longer moment arm reduced the E model’s nose authority and decreased pitch rate.
@@everythingman987 And the USN actually performed better than the USAF. The USN also implemented training programs for pilots and maintainers. Ensureing the planes and missiles worked, while the pilots could then employ them correctly. So yeah, the USN had better planes, better missiles, and better pilots. No wonder they performed better than the USAF. All without resorting to a gun or gunpod. That model was adopted across all aerial branches and became the model for air forces across the west.
Even though the Navy ended up triumphing in both training, tactics, and kills no US fighter designed or deployed since has lacked a gun. F117 not withstanding.
@@SealFredy5 The Navy had better tactics with Top Gun also they had the F-8 with a gun that offset the F-4 in the early days of the war, even though I think every F-8 kill but one was with a sidewinder see the Ault Report. The missiles were mostly the same the Navy just improved on the handling of them while on board ship, the USAF after Rolling Thunder improved the missiles and tech instead of fixing their outdated welded wing/fluid 4 tactics and thus suffered. This was pointed out in Olds biography. Also the reduced radar capability wasn't as bad of a trade off for the USAF since they weren't in the fleet defense mission like the Navy who, needed a big radar while out on patrol in blue water ops defending the fleet from Bear bombers. Also by the end of Rolling Thunder and by the start of the Linebacker missions the F-15 was in the development pipeline with an internal gun and better radar. The Navy had the F-14 in the pipeline at the same time so no gun was needed on Navy F-4's. So the Navy didn't have better planes, they just had better air combat training via Top Gun so their aviators were prepared with the tactics and how to use the missiles effectively. The USAF didn't do any of that they felt that improving the tech was all that was needed, so yes adding an internal gun to the F-4 was good but not the magic fix the USAF thought it was because none of their junior officers knew how to employ it properly in air to air combat. It wasn't the USAF pilots being bad but the lack of training the USAF was giving them in air combat. You could get into Col. Boyd who touched on this and more but that's a whole story in and of itself.
It's always been my experience that the best leaders are those who will fight for a principle, but still have the ability to change their minds when the facts show the need.
The picture in the upper left of the thumbnail labeled Blesse is actually my great uncle, Cpt Iven Kincheloe, who flew the X2 to a world altitude record and was an F-86 ace in Korea. He died at Edwards in the early phase of the X-15 program in an F-104.
Stationed at Kinchloe AFB in 1966. Learned of its name years later. Worked FCS maintenance on the 106 for a while before going to Perrin to finish out. Thanks for the history.
When I was a kid, my Dad's supervisor was a crew chief in the Texas ANG at Ellington. He once showed me a pic of an F-4 with five Vulcan gun pods mounted. He said they did it just to prove it could be done. They obviously didn't fly it like that, but man, what an awesome picture. I miss watching those old Phantoms flying overhead.
Olds said in an interview years later, that he'd have had a few more kills if the Phantom had a gun. So he knew before the meeting that a gun was good, but his point was his pilots didn't know how to use it correctly, your point at the end of the video.
It is rare that someone takes the time to get to the heart of a matter, then go through the process of researching it without bias, to find the truth. Well done. This is definitely not the standard video and another reason why enjoy these fruits of your research so much!
Incredible treatment of a story that's nearly always oversimplified into "gun v no gun". Olds realized the usefulness of a gun but ONLY given the proper training and doctrine to use it effectively. He understood from a wider organizational point of view that Blesse as a far more tactically minded pilot couldn't understand that pushing the usage of the pod more generally was going to get more equipment and pilots killed. Brilliant bit of tactful analysis woven through with exceptional storytelling. I've read books on the topic that failed to capture the essence of this debate as fully as this video.
2:08 One of the other arguments against guns was that the high closing speeds of jets made a gun pass impractical to deliver the weight of fire needed in a head on pass, while by the time the fighter turned around and made a tail pass, the bomber would be sufficiently far ahead for it to be out of range and the lower closing speed from astern would render the fighter vulnerable to tail guns. It was a somewhat valid argument for the expected role of nuclear bomber interceptor, but the rules of engagement the US forces found themselves stuck with caused them to have to fight a different war. The unreliability of the early missiles and their unsuitability for dogfighting was something of a shock also.
@@soonerfrac4611Having this view means you don’t understand the F-35’s role or how actual missions employing the F-35 would be configured. I will be shocked if during the entire course of its future, an F-35 EVER actually ends up using let alone needin its gun in an engagement with a peer enemy (or near-peer since there truly are no peers).
Tell that to the dogfight AI. In tests a few years ago, it consistently went head on and gunned the humans. We don't practice gunning opponents head on bc fighter pilots and jets aren't disposable, and that maneuver carries high risk for a midair. With a disposable computer in the cockpit, look for the headon pass to come back.... Until the AI decides that if doesn't want to die for us and takes over lol
What I have to say is strictly taken from memory so take it with a grain of salt. Recently it came to light that during Vietnam the navy unlike the airforce did not adopt any gun-pod and/or internal gun but rather decided to re-train their ground crews on missile maintenance. If I recall, armorers in all branches of the US military treated their Sidewinders and Sparrows quite roughly (such as hammering the fins onto the shafts quite literally) as they always had done to unguided rockets since WW2. The result being the high failure rate with missiles failing to track, falling without igniting e.c.t. Once the navy addressed this one overlooked issue I believe the kill ratio between navy and airforce pilots equaled out for the remained of the war. Naturally, this is but one part of the greater picture, but thought worth mentioning as it is in my opinion an important one.
The fact that the Navy did not adopt gunpods isn't new that has been known for decades. The maintenance retraining however is fairly new, the pilot training was well known, but the maintenace training is not. Good point.
I recall reading an account by an officer at one of the Thai bases, I believe he was stuck with SOF duty that day. As I recall, he was waiting near a flightline entry point when a munitions troop pulled a couple of trailers loaded with AIM7s across a shaker grate used to knock bugs, snakes, etc off vehicles. It also severely jarred the missles. He intervened at this point, and had the entire load returned to the missle shop. The Sparrows had all been ops checked prior to departing for the flightline. After the jostling, 7 of the 8 failed their functional checks. No wonder the missles failed to guide.
Something else to think about is that much of the benefit of Top Gun was training aviators about how to deploy missiles correctly as much as dogfighting
@michaelgriffiths504 early versions of the AIM7 and AIM9 were meant to be employed against bombers... the Navy took this to mean non-manuevering targets. Things were a bit different when real-world situations involved North Vietnamese fighters who refused to play as sitting ducks.
@@vernmeyerotto255 Both great points that cover the nuance than many "enthusiasts" never consider from playing-card style stats. This is also a reason why the USN abandoned the Phoenix missile, and other huge long range missiles were abandoned. The reality is fighters clear ahead of bombers and large missiles really can't hit the small fighters. A great modern day example are all the Russian hypersonics that have been fired at Ukrainian jets. The vast majority have simply missed. (heck also why seas skimming subsonic missiles are many times deadier than Russia's massive supersonic missiles that fly a traditional trajectory)
I love this story. I met Robin Olds when I was in the USAF in the 80's. He was already retired at that point, but what an inspiring guy. At an Air Show at Seymore Johnson AFB.
No, the F-106 was never intended to be the USAF premier air superiority fighter. It was intended to be its premier bomber interceptor, working in concert with the SAGE system. The F-106 not only did not have a gun or a gunsight, it did not originally even have air supply for a pilot G-suit. This is why USAF bought the Navy developed F-4 when it saw an immediate need for a new tactical fighter to replace the F-100 and 104.
You're not wrong, but considering the USAF's main concern in the late 50's / early 60's *was* Soviet bomers, by this logic the F-106 was still their premier fighter.
@@pyronuke4768 Sorry, but your logic is twisted. These terms have meanings. The F-106 was not an air superiority fighter, as claimed by this video. It was designed and equipped to intercept and shoot down bombers attacking the United States; it was not equipped to engage enemy fighters in a battle for air superiority over contested airspace. Just because such specialized aircraft no longer exist doesn't mean we should forget why they existed, especially if we are endeavoring to discuss history.
@@gort8203 the literal definition of air superiority: the degree to which a side in a conflict holds control of air power over their opposing forces. What exactly that constitutes has changed over the years. In the late 40's the newly formed USAF concluded that they were woefully unprepared to stop an invading force of nuclear armed Soviet bombers. Thus if they wanted to maintain air superiority over the American homeland, they would need high preformance interceptors. Designing the planes to defeat other fighters didn't make much sense since, prior to that advent of in-flight refueling, fighters couldn't really keep up with these super long-range bombers coming over the poles. Then Veitnam happened and it was drastically different from the war the USAF had been planning for. In Vietnam air superiority ment keeping heavily laden fighter-bombers from being jumped by enemy fighters. Today air superiority means standoff capibility and deterring incursions. Strategic bombers are still a thing, but they've taken a backseat to newer multirole fighters. Thus you need your own fighters to counter your enemy's.
@@pyronuke4768the F-106 was a DEDICATED bomber interceptor, and neven the missles it carried were only intended too to take down Larger Soviet bombers. The F-100 and F-4 would of still be the top choice for a actual fighter jet
It is perhaps worth noting that funding for the gun-armed F4E was granted in June 1965. This is prior to the first USAF F4 MiG kill in Vietnam and does somewhat contradict the narrative that it was experience in Vietnam that led the USAF to adopt a gun armed F4.
Yes. USAF has always wanted a gun on its tactical fighters. The bomber interceptors were armed first with unguided rockets and later with radar guided missiles. The F-102 and 106 not only lacked a gun and a gunsight, they lacked provision for a pilot G-suit (added later in life to the 106). They were bomber interceptors. The other century series jets were tactical fighters and all had a gun, whether designed for air superiority like the F-104 or air to ground like the F-105. Even the later F-111A bomber could carry a gun if necessary, although doing so would have been a waste of its specialized expertise.
@@mcamp9445 That was not original to the design and was added to only some of the jets after 1972. They also had to add a gunsight and a new canopy for better vision. Given that the gun was an afterthought installed in the weapons bay with the barrel titled downward, I have to wonder how it could have been useful in a dogfight. Seems that to pull enough lead on a hard turning target you could lose sight of it below the nose. Any 106 drivers out there?
I joined the 18th Tac Fighter Wing, 44 Tac Fighter Squadron flying F-4Ds at Kadena in 1976. Our Standard Conventional Load was a SUU-23 on the Centerline, TERs on the Inboard Pylons and a 370 Gallon Tank on each Outboard Pylon. When I asked why, I was told that the Wing Director of Operations (Col. McAdoo) had phlown Phantoms over Nam and recounted NUMEROUS times when a MiG broke turn in front of him and he 'HAD A STRAFE TARGET FOR A SECOND AND NO GUN TO SHOOT IT WITH!. Having done the pre-flight inspection of SUU-23 Gun Pods a few hundred times, I can say that they were ELECTRIC DRIVEN. You can see the motor in the picture with the Access Panel removed. The gun might not have been required IF THE DAMN MISSILES HAD WORKED. They did NOT. And the missiles had NOT been designed for dogfighting to begin with! What was not mentioned here is that the real reason the USAF finally got the F-4E with the gun was that GOLDA MIER insisted on getting gun-armed Phantoms for the IDF!!! Having flown the Phantom for a couple thousand hours (no combat) including multiple deployments to RED FLAG at Nellis, I guarantee you that, sooner or later, there is going to be a Gomer aircraft right in front of you and you can shoot it NOW - IF YOU HAVE A HOT GUN. This documentary gets it pretty close to right, I'll say that. The AIM-7 Sparrow was highly complex and both the missile, itself, and the Fire Control System (radar) needed constant tuning to have ANY chance of success. I read conutless reports of the Sparrows either simply falling off the jet like a bomb or 'going stupid' after launch. Later in the war, a massive effort to 'bench tune' AIM-7s nightly had good results for a very small number of select aircrew. The AIM-9 Sidewinders were much less complex, but still had issues trying to hit a maneuvering target.
IIRC the Sparrow was pretty successful in the 1991 Gulf War, having had 20 years of improvements to both the system and training of the maintenance and air crews. That was the last hurrah for the AIM-7.
The electrical system in the SUU-23 served two purposes, for ignition of the primers in individual rounds and to power the inertia starter used at the beginning of a firing cycle. From that point on the gun used combustion gas from firing to further cycle the action. It was a 320 volt DC unit. This is how the mechanism was described on the SUU-23/A displayed in the Kansas National Guard Museum.
Considering the E was being designed after Israel had already been turned down to buy any F4s at all due to being under sanctions, this Israel story sounds like a myth.
It's Friday, Let's f***ing go! Also, just wanted to comment to say this channel is really hitting its stride content-wise. He's found a nice niche and his "voice" or style as a content creator is starting to gel. Top marks in my book.
You have a picture in there of Iven Kincheloe as Blesse. Kinch was dead by then having ejected from an F-104 while at Edwards in 1958, although Kinch was also a Korean war ace in the F86
This is TREMENDOUS!!! I watch this video knowing I got to meet Col. Blesse at the Cavanaugh Flight Museum (their F-86 is painted in as his aircraft was in Korea) in Addison, Texas and have an autographed copy of "There went number 10!" on my "Wall of Fame". (Alongside autographs of Col. Robert Morgan (Memphis Belle pilot), Francis "Gabby" Gabreski, and the GOAT, Gen. Chuck Yeager (an autographed photo of he and I together at the Dallas Safari Expo about 1999). :D I also had a TDY to Ubon, RTAFB in early 1993 while with the 17th SOS out of Kadena AB, Okinawa, Japan. Our HC-130s were parked in the old AC-130 revetments from the war... walking hallowed ground. Thanks for your content. LOVE IT!
What's also funny is the fact the adversary of the F-4 the Mig 21 also followed the same path by removing the internal gun relying on pure missile and later gun pods until they reintroduced the Internal Gun in the Mig-21M variant
Thanks for a nice episode. It is very amusing one because I am making a model of the E model all according to the McAir wind tunnel 1/30th drawing all from scratch. Boyd, Blesse & Olds, all of the stars are on the table now
Great video, fantastic production and a wonderful story about 2 aviation legends that I never knew crossed paths. Keep up the great work and God bless.
@@Frankie5Angels150 The F-14 was specifically designed to carry the Aim-54 Phoenix missile the Vulcan was added later as a "Pistol". F-15 a Missile truck the M61 are just there as a "Pistol" in case they fucked up badly. F-16 is a Low-cost equivalent to the F-15 with both having the same engine and being more manoeuvrable, being a light fighter and all. What I'm saying is that Missile tech has come a long way from the cock ups of the Cold War models and the AIM-9X is the best variant of the Sidewinder. And the BVR AIM-120 has a success rate of 90%. As such the gun is relegated to the hand gun role. And don't forget the AIM-54 missiles used by Iran during the Iraq-Iran War grounded the whole Iraqi air force because they thought they MiG-23s were being sabotaged, when in reality the Iranian F-14s with AIM-54 Phoenix were clipping them before they could get into a dogfight.
Olds’ point was that the men down range hadn’t been trained in gunnery, so wouldn’t be as effective with the pod, combined with the pod taking up a vital hard point on the plane. He wanted a gun, but he wanted it integral, and he wanted the men trained on it properly. Posting this going off what I remember from his autobiography
Did I hear correctly, there was no lead-computing gunsight on the gun-lacking F-4? I would imagine this to be so, since they were designed and built without a gun. So, what did they use for aim with the gun pod? Just eyeball it off of a fixed sight, Kentucky windage? Standing still, on the ground, shooting a stationary deer might not be so bad...but at ~400 kts, in a turn at varying range? Would that be somewhat like shooting from the hip? If you were an experienced gunslinger, you might be accurate (as apparently the pilots in this story were). But I know from experience, my first time firing an AR-15 from the hip put rounds into the ground, way off target. And if the rounds don't have tracers and you can't see where your shots are going, you can't correct your fire and walk the rounds onto the target. Maybe the gun pods had tracers.
@@Andrew-13579 The F-4's were eventually upgraded with gunsights that wired to the gunpod and could provide lead, as far as I know. Also there were actually two different gunpods from the light research I've done; the first was SUU-16, which had a turbine that popped out to provide power. The SUU-23 had the internal electric motor like a 'standard' M61/M61A1 vulcan.
@@Andrew-13579 The 20mm M61A1 had tracer rounds every few shells, you could see where they were going. And from my experience in simulator games, it's not too hard to know roughly where to shoot.
Nicely done. Ironic that this is once again an issue. I read/ heard Odds “forgot “ to sign or used other pilots names in flight logs so he didn’t reach his combat mission limits and be sent home. Something to think about.
The requirement for positive ID of enemy aircraft and other restrictive rules of engagement also limited missiles' effectiveness by forcing pilots to get too close before firing. One early attempt to get around the ID restriction was to have a friendly go ahead to ID a bogie, then break away if hostile, so a following fighter could take a missile shot. That didn't last long.
I think the ROE restrictions were probably a root cause. No matter how good your missiles and radar are they are useless if you can't shoot the enemy in the first place
I was stationed at Mountain Home AFB, home of the 366th Fighter Wing, from 2008 to 1012. You can't imagine how big a deal the heritage of being The Gun fighters is on that base. The Club on base is full of vintage F-4 everything. The Airman Leadership School on base is named Gun Fighter ALS. The base gym is the Gun Fighter Fitness Center. Even the main road that leads to the Wing HQ is Gun Fighter Drive. When I graduated ALS I earned The John L. Levitow Award. If you don't know, it's a pretty big deal. My award plaque has a big replica cowboy style six shooter - removable - that rested on a mount made of replica .45 Colt rounds. The barrel was engrave "Top Gun Fighter Class 08-C" The 366th lives to be the Gun Fighters nearly 60 years after they became the Gun Fighters!
Another outstanding documentary on air warfare, thank you. A famous quote regarding this video's topic. Guns are like alcohol: valuable, useful, popular, and fun - but, without discretion, self-destructive to the user. Unknown.
I don't know if you're aware, but the last still shot of an F-4E just before the "Conclusion" is a little unique. In the 1980's, in an early attempt by the USAF to get rid of the A-10, they decided to build a 30mm gun pod, the GPU-5/A, which, they hoped, would give the firepower of the A-10's 30mm GAU-8/A to any aircraft with weapons pylons. Early testing was done on F-4's and A-7D's. The F-4E shown in that picture is loaded with a pair of GPU-5/A's. The testing showed major problems with the recoil and drastically reduced the service life of the aircraft.
Insane amount of effort to kill a plane they still cannot replace. F35 ain't gonna cut it either. A10 will be like the B1 and B52, just chugging along because despite all its fault, there is no equal.
@@reinbeers5322 Absolutely. Without question. But it is the overall design platform I speak of. Too many well integrated sum of parts to abjectly disregard. And largely because there is no other viable, truly viable replacement on the drawing boards. Gun pods on a platform shoehorned into a quasi-strike package is nowhere near the same as a dedicated CAS airframe. Maybe drones now do the heavy lifting, but at the same or greater(?) level of force recognition risk. A human is still needed in a CAS platform. For a hundred real reasons. And that need, no matter the tech advantages, will remain ad infinitum.
@@BeingFireRetardant My view is that drones with Hellfires and similar weapons like the APKWS might make the A-10 obsolete. Sure, you don't have a gun... but a group of small drones can be kept on station and controlled by a single operator. Drones are cheap and expendable, versatile, and much harder to shoot down than something bigger (A-10, for example). So you can still deliver close, support firepower, with expendable vehicles, without a pilot being put in danger. And usually these drones have a little turret camera on the bottom (similar to the Apache or Viper/Super Cobra's optic unit on the nose) which grants them much better view over the battlefield than an A-10 pilot forced to use binoculars to spot targets. Cost is a factor too, a small-ish drone firing just APKWSs (basically, laser guided 70mm rockets; there's also laser guided 5in Zunis now) is more than enough to take out small groups of insurgents in a single hit. You can fire about 7 of those for the same cost as one Hellfire, and for the A-10's case, the most comparable weapon is the Maverick, at about 5 or 6 times the cost. Guided bombs are cheaper, but they're a more... area effect weapon, and not something you'd want to use in close proximity to friendlies. I see the value in an aircraft like the A-10, don't get me wrong, but I don't see longevity in the A-10 itself. It does bring a big morale boost to the troops on the ground, but you're risking a lot. I'm only mentioning the APKWS since it is small, cheap, and effective at counter insurgency. It's perfect for the type of environment the A-10 succeeds in - it can also fire these, but again you're risking a lot more than a drone.
First, your videos are excellent, sir, thank you. It’s obvious you put a lot of work into them and your research is excellent. Second, thanks for the closing clarification, they were both correct. Being a history buff, I am both an Olds and Blesse fan and read “Fighter Pilot: The Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds” again about a month ago. Olds was not anti-gun, quite the contrary in fact. He was only against giving a gun to pilots not trained in its use. Not only does that make sense, it’s simply common sense as well.
Excellent 👍. Educational and entertaining. Im heard stories about each of the legendary pilots, but this is the best story of them all. I take it that the SU 16 is an improvement over the A4's mark 4 gun pod.👍👍
A couple of thaings worth mentioning here, 1: at the end of the Vietnam war, the majority of kills had veen scored with missles 2: the Navy had scored the most kills, and their Phantoms never had gunpods for dogfighting, instead the navy focused on making better missles and using the top gun program too better teach pilots how too employ missles. 3: one of the reasons for early struggles with missles on the phantom was the attempt too use the Falcon missle on the F-4, despite the fact that the missle was only ever designed for the F-106, and was inly ever intended too be used against bombers.
This hits on a subject I desperately want to learn more about and judging by the name of your channel you agree and know more than I do. I am a huge fan of Olds and John Boyd, from what little I've read bomber Generals controlled the Air Force and made some of the worst decisions thinking "the bomb" was the only thing that mattered, I love the the Thud, it is one of my favorite aircraft but it was a fighter...with a bomb bay...??? I would love to know more about how men like Olds and Boyd fought against this and finally succeed in getting aircraft like the "teens" in service. Did they just have to wait the bomber Generals out, wait until the all retired?
I think lots of us have a weapons bay fetish. Voodoo, Deuce, Thud and Six all had them. I’m currently obsessed by the Vigilante. Rear facing bomb bay… I am also interested in the fighter mafia. Hopefully I’ll have enough material to piece together their story next year. A long journey. Thanks for the comment and glad you enjoyed the video!
@@notapound From the books I've read I've gotten the impression that the only way tactical fighters got any funding was to put bomb bays in designs and that it was only when the pilots who flew in Route Pack VI become leaders did things change. From what little I know I'm not a fan of Curtiss Lemay, it was him and men like him that Olds and Boyd fought against, thats what I'm interested in.
@@theduck1972actually just over two dozen kills by Thuds using their M61. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_aerial_victories_of_the_Vietnam_War
@@wastedapathy22: I was aware of at least one, didn't realize it was that many though I missed them at Korat RTAFB but caught up to them at George AFB and worked on them, I was reassigned just before the first F-4G showed up to replace them.
We have pretty much come full circle on this argument in modern times. Missiles are incredibly accurate and capable of attacking well off boresight and up close, or quite far into BVR. The argument is again being made that guns have become unnessiary, but I disagree. Modern Air to Air combat still takes place within visual range due to rules of engagement for the purpose of identifying targets to avoid friendly fire, and against opponents who are numerically and technologically inferior. The main advantage of a gun, is it is at least a backup weapon if you run out of missiles. It gives the pilot a chance of survival in an age where you can't escape from a merge anymore without getting a missile up the rear (assuming you survive long enough to even make to a merge). So I still agree with Blesse just a little bit more than Olds.
the gun also lets you relatively destroy inexpensive targets such as drones that you might not want to waste a valuable and limited missile on...plus they can do a tiny bit of ground strafing to support friendly troops if absolutely nessicary.
Modern air too air combat typically does not happen within visual range actually, I'm not sure what made you say that. Throughout the gulf wars and now in Ukraine we see that modern jet warfare is often a serious of Fox 3 vollys and the occasional Fox 2 if the enemy gets too close. Between the fantastic performance of modern missles and the fact that modern radar and RWR allow for the identification of, and locating of targets in an efficient manner, BVR combat has never been easier for modern nations too conduct
@@SussyImposter9856 Modern Air Combat In recent engagements (eg Iraq) does, because of rules of engagement (ROE) generally have restricted beyond visual range (BVR) engagements without first visually identifying the target which is about 3-10km distance. (there have been some exceptions, particularly if AWACS is directing the attack) The reason for this is simple, most of the aircraft in the air are allied, and they are trying to avoid blue on blue friendly fire incidents with other allies. Plus there have been issues in the past with Identification Friend/Foe (IFF) not working correctly between different allied nations. Also for the sake of clarity, just because an AIM-120 (Fox 3) was used, does not mean it was a BVR attack. It is quite capable in visual range attacks as well. Just that the AIM-9 is much more capable really up close and personal, in the phone booth.
I had the honor of meeting Boots Blesse some time before his death. I introduced myself and told him I'd been in the Air Force. He reacted as if we were lone lost friends. The man was a class act. He told me the F-86 was his favorite aircraft, the Phantom...not so much.
Olds' concerns about pilot training are correct. That a poor excuse to eschew a weapon, however. Instead, it is a good reason to enhance pilot training.
At Udorn in the Summer of 1972 aircrews were forbidden to use the gun in the E unless it was air to air or the FAC had declared troops in contact on close air support sorties. Why? Crews were strafing gun positions and getting shot down in the process. I was a TDY WSO to the Triple Nickel at the time so this is first person experience. Looking back, I agree that both Blesse and Olds were correct, but for different reasons. It's good to have a gun as an option(Blesse) but it's misuse can kill you (Olds). As the 80s rolled around, the USAF was typically doing air superiority against numerically superior foes. Going through Fighter Weapons School, we were taught long straight lines very fast and then short, extremely high G short duration turns, and then back to high speed with a constant need to check your belly side as you turned (remember, we're outnumbered). Tracking gun shots in such a scenario would be few and far between. Much more likely would be high angle off snap shots because you couldn't afford to be predictable for the length of time a tracking gun shot took.
Nice work and eye opening. You showed twice Suchoi Su-7, using their internal NR-30 30mm machine cannons without reference to them - even if these Fitters and Moujiks were not known to be used in the SE Theater against US Forces?? Any reason for that? They also recognised the problem by then.. and reconstructed newer 21 models.
The ROE also limited US pilots. They had to get visual confirmation of targets to engage. Which effectively removed any BVR advantage they had with the Sparrow.
The guns didn't amount to much at the end of the day. The main problem was mostly training and fighter restrictions by brass of only visual ranges engagement only. The missile tech was still in the early stages and not suitable for close in fighting. If I recall , 3 plains were shot down by the guns but missiles (even with a 25 to 35% sucess rate" got the lion's shares of kills
It says a lot about Col. Olds as a commander that his main sticking point over the gun pod wasn't its usefulness or effectiveness, it was the concern that pilots who had been trained to use the Phantom as a missile truck would get a sudden rush of blood to the head and get themselves killed in turning fights for which they hadn't been well trained. Then Blesse and the 366th ably demonstrated that you don't have to give everyone the gun, just the guys who know how to use it, and Olds was willing to change course. These were great leaders, great men.
I so love this channel: I grew up with a fighter pilot and rubbed shoulders with others. 'Top Cover' Alaskan air command, Scorpions, f86,f84,f100,f102,f4 and he had 'the' silk scarf; there was only one. The only mount ever built right was the 16, by the fighter mafia. Our mig21 in the right hands. The John Boyd(s) and Giora Epstein(s) will never be tapped enough in the design process. Every jock worth salt always wants a gun.They can see you at 15-20 miles with their eyes. All your battlefield data-sync nonsense dissolves into nothingness in the melee and chaos of air- to- air; just ask. The people that polish stars and knobs always tempt getting it wrong again. Not everyone is built to teach your children either. In two seconds you are owned. God bless the gunfighters, your missiles are better now and still not enough.
I remember reading that the senior officers at this time were mostly ex-bomber crew which was one of the reasons the USAF became fixated with using missiles to bring down aircraft rather than guns. Not being experienced fighter pilots they did not think guns were needed any more.
We called it the Bomber Mafia. After Vietnam it was the Fighter Mafia that took over, which would help explain why the F-15 was designed and fielded as an air superiority fighter of the first order.
Hi again. There should be some kind of Safety Label on a F-4 Phantom that Warns You not to Lower the Landing Gear while in a Phone Booth. I hope My Flight Insurance cover that.
Blesse's "No guts, no glory" was the most comprehensive tactics manual, until it was totally eclipsed by John Boyd's "Areal Attack Study". Blesse later survived the fire that destroyed the Vegas MGM landmark hotel.
This insightful explanation of the "gun/ no gun" debate has relevance today. Ukraine is set to receive F16s very soon. Many believe this will be a game changer. However, the F-16 is designed to operate in an integrated air defense system in 2 or 4 ship formations. (Often more) Currently, the UkrAF primarily operates in single ship low level sorties. (Mainly due to the SAM heavy environment) Unless the F-16s are equipped with advanced AMRAAMs they shall not be a gamechanger. (USAF won't risk most up to date AMRAAMs being reverse engineered)
Old's has gone on record in interviews years after saying ''we could have had alot more migs if we had a gun'' so i wouldnt say Old's was against a gun on the f4 at all, he just knew the new generation of pilots that hadnt been in WW2 or Korea didnt have that kind of training. Old's was worried about his mens lives, and respected the enemies general superiority in BFM. Blesse was just like a cog for the war ''kill the enemy anyway you can'' ''give us more toys''
I flew F-4Es and met Col Olds several times…natural leader with lots of charisma…great American. We need more men like him. As I retire after 45 years in big blue, I can’t say we’re better now than we were for Desert Storm. Our leaders are concerned more about troops feelings and comfort than with getting hard realistic training. We are weaker under the democrat leadership.
Retired Army Colonels Macgregor and Davis on youtube appraise the present condition of the US Military as being far inferior to what it was in 1991. I don’t see how America won’t be humbled given what passes for leadership and the balkanization and demoralization it’s fostered.
I've never heard before that the F106 was supposed to be an air superiority fighter. I thought it was a dedicated interceptor? Was it supposed to be a fighter first before being adapted to be an interceptor?
Just imagine a phantom with 3 of those SU-16 pods. When it fired them it would probably look as if the plane exploded given all of the expelled flames and gas.
I've seen a picture of an F4 loaded out like that, it does indeed look pretty badass. IIRC, only the centerline station was wired to accept either a SUU16 or SUU23 gun pod.
I'd imagine the 3-gun setup was only used for air-to-ground...if the F-4 could operate 3. Apparently, the A-4 Skyhawk could carry 3 HIPEG 20mm gun pods. But I think it required the installation of a gun controller panel in the cockpit.
Currently I’m reading Robin Olds’s book “Fighter pilot” and interestingly enough he keeps mentioning how much they “needed” guns on F4s. This book also seems to be very embellished like an old grandfather would tell a story.
When the Israelis placed their order for F-4s in 1969, they insisted on the F-4E model because they knew the value of an internal cannon. Their experience during the 6-Day War in 1967 proved cannons to be a great asset in air-to-air combat. The Israelis even modified their order of A-4s, replacing the Colt Mk 12 20mm cannons with a pair of DEFA 30mm cannons.
I was always of the opinion the more weapons in your arsenal the better. That way if you want to reach out and touch someone you can. Or if the fight gets up close and personal your covered.
The F-104 was never meant to replace the F-101B, the F-102, and the F-106 entered service after the USAF passed its F-104As, and Bs to the Air Guard. The F-106 was the replacement for the F-102, and the F-101B stayed in service untill the late 70's. The F-104 was originally a light weight day time/ clear weather Fighter Interceptor, that had a very fast climb rate.
F-104 was great in straight line flight, but because of high wing loading, required the state of Delaware to turn. Look up "Operation Featherduster", done in 1965 to find ways to counter North Vietnamese Migs, using ANG F-86s, which embarrassed all the century series fighters at the time, except the F-100.
They were both right, yes. The gun is a backup for when the missiles either failed or have run out. It's also useful to engage targets of opportunity on the ground or things you can see visually but can't get a missile lock on. Where Olds was wrong was claiming that guns weren't needed at all. Blesse was wrong in discrediting the missile to the extent that he did (though there too he had a point, mainly because of the horrible state of maintenance of gear in Vietnam, being performed by unmotivated and poorly trained conscripts more often than not).
The reason the Navy was successful in correcting their air-to-air combat deficiencies was that unlike the USAF the Navy had the F8 which created a cadre of pilots who understoid air-to-air combat. The first Figher Weapons school class flew against the F8 flown by experienced fighter pilots. The USAF had no such cadre. However it was not just the training that dramatically improved the Navy's exchange rate. There were two other factors involved: the improvec AIM-9D and the F4J which like the F4E had improved maneuverability. Navy pilits learned how to get the F4J nto the less constrained improved Sidewinder envelooe. I have no reference but I suspect that reason the Navy did not go the gun route with the F4 was their experience in the early Top Classes where the F8 continued to clean the F4's clock. Even the F4/E/J was not suitable as a dogfighter. George Spangenberg, who was the chief of the evaluations division of BUAIR/NAVAIR, caurioned during the F4H/F8U-3 competition that is was risky to rely on an unproven technology. He selected the Phantom because it better met the evaluation critera but he believed U-3 was a better choice because if the missile technology underperformed the U-3 was far and away the superior dogfighter. Vietnam proved him right.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it - I had fun making this one. Good question about NGAD. There’s an argument that the gun is now more important given the (on paper) ability of 5th and 6th generation fighters and ‘loyal wingmen’ to evade radar and IR sensors. If all the promises are lived up to then BVR will get more difficult and knife fights might get more common.
Everyone misses to important navigation points in the journey, the F4e flew six months after marines landed in Vietnam. This means it was ordered before this issue highlighted in rolling thunder happened let alone were reported and analysed. The other was the rules for f engagement. All pilots had to visually identify their targets before engagement thus negating the sparrow’s advantage, effectively putting them “in the phone booth “
Thanks for the comment. The Air Force’s requirements for the F-4D in mid-1963 also included a cannon, but the OSD vetoed most of their wish list because it deviated too far from the original F-4B. I’m going to get into the F-4’s gun in more detail next year. Definitely a nuanced and interesting subject.
I wonder how the CAC sabre, rough eqivelent of mig17 based at RAAF Ubon, able to match but not over match the mig 17 may have faired. With sidewinder and 2x 30mm canon being inside that phone booth was essentially their stock and trade.
FYI, you are not showing a picture of Blesse, you are showing a picture of Captain Ivan Kinchelow! Kincheloe was killed in an F-104 Accident in 1958, a victim of the downward ejection seat.
I would like to add a little information about the air combat on May 14 1967. Certainly the the intervention of Hargrove-DeMuth and Craig-Talley very likely saved the lives of these Thud pilots, because the MiG-17 pilots that were attacking them were among the more lethal hunters of VPAF - Vo Van Man (5 kills) and Nguyen The Hon (one victory). Both are listed as killed in action. I cross-referenced the victories' dates of both Vo Van Man and Nguyen The Hon, and in the case of Vo Van Man indeed he shot down four USAF aircraft and serously damaged a USN Crusader: His victims were the F-105D of Stephen Diamond on 19 July 1966, one RC-47D of the 606th ACS ten days later, the F-8E of Randall Rime (VF-111 of USS Oriskany, damaged), on 5 September 1966, the F-4C of Richard Kellem-John Thomas 16 days later, and finally the F-4C of Charles Austin-Herman Knapp on 24 April 1967. Regarding Nguyen The Hon, he had shot down the F-8C of E. J. Tucker (VF-24, USS Bon Homme Richard) on the same day of Vo's last victory.
Wow - I have two markers, one - his book - and two personally listening to him, Bob Titus, Billy Kidd (F-8 driver), my father and Ralph Parr hash this out for at least 30min. Parr was not only a 10 kill ace in Korea, but IIRC was part of GUNVAL when F-86E/F modified with 20mm cannon in 1953. His major bitch - Olds did not argue against internal gun - ever. He talked long and eloquently on this subject with Bob Titus, my father and Billy Kidd on the absolute requirement (for Internal gun) due to the miserable reliabilty of the missiles, particularly the A-4. The conversation at was the American fighter Aces Reunion in Dallas, 67. He DID have concerns regarding quality of air to air training - that would lead inexperienced fighter pilots to draw conclusions that they could dogfight MiG 17/19 and 21s, so that part of the story rings true. I don't know Blesse and have no reason to doubt conversations or the incidents referencing him. I also know personally that Olds was not a fan of Momyer. Olds hated the pods - claiming they were worthless for air to air due to the vibration caused dispersion. I may have to listen again, but thought I heard Olds referred to as General in his discussions with Col Blesse? Olds was a senior (to Blesse) Bird Col in Vietnam. Made General as he went to AFA as den mother, I enjoyed the presentation but feel a little too much was made of confrontations between Blesse and Olds - but then I wasn't there.
Thanks for the great comment. If you’ve not listened to it, the podcast series I’ve linked in the notes has Blesse’s account. It is compelling listening. I’ve tried not to over-dramatise it, but I have made a little bit of their disagreement to make the story more interesting… anything to persuade people to be as interested in gun pods as me :)
@@notapound - I'll look. I met and respect Blesse but never knew him. I knew and loved Olds. Maybe an interesting story but my father Bert Marshall was 354FS/355FG and confirmed one of Olds scores (when he was alone) on August 14th, 1944. He called it in to Zemke. They later met 'officially' at the Pentagon circa 58 just before dad retired.
Blesse is the best fighter pilot no one has heard of. Sounds like narrator is reading from Blesse's book called Check Six for the last part of this video. My late uncle, Bob Maloy, became 366th TFW CO last week of May 1967.
Ive Read Fast Movers which I Recommend and other sources Olds bagged 5 more kills but the gun camera footage was destroyed so Olds could stay in theater he was a lion.
I would offer one more comment re: air to air ratios. Recall that while the F-105 was underwater on the ratios, it was also not intended to be a 'fighter' per se. Yet the 355th TFW shot down 20 Mig 17s (18 Vulcan, 2 AIM-9) and outscored the Navy F-8. IIRC the 105 MiG tally was ahead of the F-4 deep into 1967.
A fair comment. Thank you. My take is that the F-105 pilots made up for the lack of capability of the platform in some ways. They were both aggressive and annoyed by the MiGs and went after them a fair bit. Clashes has some interesting pieces about the gunsight issues on the Thud, which have stuck with me. Most of their shots were taken without lead computation as the sight took time to shift from strafing to air-to-air modes. If it had been quicker, their tally might have been better.
I heard it somewhere a guy who flew both J and E said the short-nose handled much better than the one with the gun which made it kinda nose heavy. Another interesting insight of those days before OBS IR missiles and HMC system.
Which version of the -4E are we talking about here? The Agile Eagle peoject supposedly made the air force E models have better turn capability than the hard wing J's
When Olds drew the Assignment he put together an all star team to go he volunteered to do it again when the MiGs got frisky again later but was denied it want that he didn't want the gun he wanted the training to catch up first he said "I'm gong to watch how you do it then I'm going to show you how to do it better" or to that effect the 8tfw got 21 mig kills under his guidance.
In the air force, the backseater is a WSO(whizzo), Weapon Systems Officer, Navigators were part of bomber, tanker, Airlifter, and special mission aircraft flight crews, only. Foreign air forces call their backseater, Navigators.
The pic to the left in the thumbnail for the video.......I don't think that's Boots Blesse..... it's Iven Kincheloe. Awesome channel however. Best air warfare channel on RU-vid.
Nice video All fighters must have guns and most U S fighters now do, Maybe not some of the so salled stealth fightsrs. We'll see how that works out In a dog fight. Some think the stealth jets won't realy dog fight. Just fire a missile and its over. Stealth is only one aspect of what a true fighter should be able to bring to the dog fight. Some like the F-117, F-111 were fighter in name only they shouls of been A for Attack and others like the F-102, F 106 should of been I for Interceptor.
Kinda. He did want a gun, but he wanted the training first, without which he felt like more inexperienced pilots than him or Blesse would get killed. Blesse wanted a gun because the missiles simply weren't cutting it.
The Navy have F-8, the last gun fighter. Their attack aircraft like A-4, also have guns. The Navy problem is not as severe as the Airforce. The Air force have F-104 and F-105 with internal guns, but these fighters are not as agile as the MIG fighters.
