The REAL reasons America lost dogfights over Vietnam 

Been thinking of this, would make the F-22’s manueverable again lol

That would be an example of true irony

Doesn't really matter with newer missiles like AIM-9X Block 2+ and others in development with off boresight capabilities. Nearly impossible to escape.

@@krizzle4087 Didn’t that Syrian Su-22 evade a 9X so the F-18 driver had to use an AMRAAM?

@@Rimasta1 One case, all weapons fail sometimes. You can find footage of the 9X hitting targets behind the launching platform on RU-vid, it has proven capability to do so.

The US politians lost the, Vietnam War, it wasn't the lose of the US Militray. The insane and idiotic rules and policies cut the balls off the US military and the US military strategy. Politians telling US military TO NOT target and TO NOT bomb certain targets because the politians didn't want to piss off the Chinese government....not letting US aircraft target/bomb certain North Korean ammunition depots and military staging bases and North Korean High Command Centers is what caused the US to lose the War. The last war that the US fought where ALL politians let the US military Generals fight the war, was in, WW2. I mean, A WORLD WAR was one in just 4 years.....while Vietnam was 11 years and didn't resolve anything. This should have been a wake up call to not let politians dictate war strategy...but no.....Korean War is like a 50/50 military strategy and Politian strategy. US War in the Middle east(21 years) was a waste because the Middle East countries own militaries didn't have the stomach to fight and defend their own countries. That's not the fault of the US military. The US military immediately took control of both countries and made an environment that would let the countries own militaries grow and train but they refused and are full of corruption. Was the US supposed to stay and police the middle east forever? The people who say the US military lost the Middle East war also say that the US shouldn't have to stay in the middle east....so they are contradicting their own views. Lol

Wasn’t the majority of air combat in desert storm within visual range? I know most kills were with the Aim-7 but i thought that due to the amount of friendly aircraft in the area ROE were strict.

@@koekiejam18 The CENTAF Commander was General Horner and this quote here shows his thinking, "Long before the war started, we concluded we couldn't live with unrestricted BVR because of the stealth at night, primarily. And we also concluded it wasn't required because the Iraqi's weren't going to pose that big a threat. We were going to take out their command and control and then we were going to shoot them down. So, the decision was one of practicality, not one of doctrine." The USN wanted to shoot BVR but another quote, "Stan Arthur (Admiral and commander of NAVCENT) came to see me because the F-14 guys wanted to use the Phoenix. I understood exactly where he was coming from, and I asked Stan, "Please send your case to Schwarzkopf, and let him adjudicate it. This is one area where we have an honest difference of opinion. Both sides have validity." So he did that. Unfortunately, Schwarzkopf (General and CENTCOM Commander) called me in and said, "Explain this to me." So, I was put in the position of defending Stan in front of Schwarzkopf, which I did. And then he said, "What is the alternate argument?" And then I gave him my argument, and he said, "Write me that answer and I'll send it." So, I just wrote the answer back to Stan, "I understand where you are coming from, but the trouble is the risk is higher than the benefit." Quite frankly, what we did after that was give the F-14s BVR shot capability if we knew that there were no allied aircraft in a given area." Found these quotes from P. MASON CARPENTER from his thesis Joint Operation in the Gulf War: An Allison Analysis. The last part I'll paraphrase but basically to make the USN able to use their Phoenix missile would be at the detriment of the bombing campaign because the USN needed a 100 mile radius around Baghdad to be a no fly zone by Coalition forces to make sure there could be no fratricides because at the time the USN planes could not technologically fulfill the ROE of two independent verifications of bandits. The USAF F-15Cs could do this but most initial contacts by AWACs were at under 50 miles so technically BVR but dual confirmation by the F-15s essentially meant they were already within visual range, meaning if the F-15 could carry Phoenix they wouldn't use it anyways. word salad.

@@Omegacalgar I appreciate your effort but i have absolutely no clue what kind of point you are trying to make with this aptly named word salad

If you can’t trust the protocols to prevent blue-on-blue incidents without visual ID, you obviously can’t make beyond-visual-range kills.

"I'm not a devious man by nature... but when you're unarmed, your tactics might gunna be downright Archimedean." -Buster Scruggs

The Vietcong have a legendary reputation that is not deserved. The US wiped out 2.5 million of them. The US lost 50000 troops which was a much lower figure than WW2 or Korea. People talk a lot of nonsense when it comes to conflicts like Vietnam.

​@@bighands69 only around 1,3-5 million vietnamese soldier kill in all our war since 1945 ( include the last war again Chinese and Cambodian that lasted up to 1990 and war again insurgent like fluro in Vietnam and Hmong in lao ) 2. You forget to count south Vietnam and us allies who join your war 3.many american vet die later from PTSD and wound from the war that didn't get count as combat kill.

​@@bighands69 if on equal fighting with out arty and plane support the result will be much more closer 😃but then american have Superior firepower and still lost say alot. Never invade other nation is the lesson , invader never end well , look at Russia kill more Ukrainian but in the end they will lost just like america lost in Vietnam

@@bighands69 The draft ended three months before I turned 18, so no, I wasn't there. But with all due respect to those who did their duty and made sacrifices, it has been a VERY long time since I heard anyone crow about how "we" did in Vietnam. My point was that the NVAF made the most of their very limited resources. The effectiveness of their efforts is evident in the changes in US tactics during and after the war, was well as the influence on the design of American fighters that followed the Phantom.

Not suprised. Not surprised at all. Friggin bean counters like McNamara.

The critics, most of them actual communists, have been saying the same thing about NATO since its inception. It took such a conventional war to actually happen, (in Ukraine), to realize that every penny ever spent on NATO has been well worth it! It is entirely conceivable that during the cold war era, the Soviets might have believed at some point they were capable of defeating the west Germans, or the British, or even the US Army in Europe - but even they had to realize they didn't stand a chance against all of them combined.

​@@robertmaybeth3434 "The critics, most of them actual communists"......or ignorant, pro-authoritarian types like Donald Trump, who almost continually downgraded NATO while he was in office. Having the right Anerican president at the right time is also vital. You can bet that Ukraine and the rest of our European allies are thankful that Joe Biden is president. Trump either would've done nothing, or he might've actually helped Vladimir Putin pull off his invasion. Trump was a badly flawed and---in my opinion---politically compromised leader. Putin owned him, and the truth of that is just starting to emerge.

​@kellywalker8407 You also should remember McNamara was A Champion for his fav Ford, the Edsel, just like he was for the "One Size fits ALL" F-4, when he was Secretary of Defense. Which IMHO - IT DID NOT!

@@robertmaybeth3434 and it takes brainwashed americans believing their news PR to think Russia isn't GOING TO WIPE THE FLOOR WITH YOU. So you spend 30 years breaking every part of the agreement made to end the cold war, put bases and strike capability right on Russian door step - against said agreement, send your navy subs into Russian Seas consistently, again against said treaty - THEN YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO COMPLAIN WHEN RUSSIA STARTS TAKIN ACTION TO PROTECT IT BORDERS. america is not the best, never was, and never will be. You stole technology from the Russians(USSR at the time), The USSR led all the way, usa only won due to fractional banking, out spending the USSR, and you are in trillions of debt still trying to out do everyone - While Russia is in the black and has assets usa could only dream off - when this kicks off, usa is gone with, they will be out spent, out preformed and completely destroyed. america is no longer a super power, you are holding on by a thin string, which will snap when Russia openly challenges you. AND I FOR ONE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT DAY VERY SOON. edit - ''but even they had to realize they didn't stand a chance against all of them combined.'' - also you think that because you are listening to your own PR news outlets. Unlike usa - Russia doesn't broadcast everything they have - they have no need like the usa to go ugg ugg ugg look at what caveman here has, oh I have a big stick - case and point - remember Trump boasting about usa having the biggest and best MOAB, with in what 2 weeks, what did Russia show on parade, oh yeah thats it a much bigger and better MOAB than yours. There is something to letting your enemy think they have the upper hand and are better, and will win easily - so that when the first engagements happen and usa is utterly decimated - the effect that will have on soldiers moral will win the war.

Just remember, though, that hindsight is always a great thing. It’s easy to say all the things noted in the video as so much has been learned since then, as so much will be learned from now, 50 years forward.

Sounds like the G metre acted like a shock indicator on expensive and fragile goods. As a commercial passenger in a 747, I was involved in the heaviest landing imaginable, short of collapsing the undercarriage. It felt as if the pilot threw the aircraft onto the runway. with the overhead luggage containers spilling open and dropping their contents onto the bewildered heads of many. This was a United Airways flight, and I really hope its sensors were jammed in the upper register of 'Gulp.' It should have received a full and thorough mechanical inspection after that flight.

@@user-ec8xo7qq1v I was told by the crew chief on that plane that the G-meters would reset, in fact pilots had a habit of resetting them after EACH flight. Don't know if that is normal or trying to cover any mistakes. But seems that the G meter in this case was damaged by the G loading. If my old memory is right the meters maxed out at 13 Gs! The pilot who was an instructor in a class I had had some time at the base hospital. Seems his spine had compressed more than normal. Ouch. He did walk funny that evening and we commented that he wasn't sitting well. This and the time a plane crashed in the swamp near Avon Park were the only two major flying events that I remember.

I see internet aviation experts say all the time that WVR combat is no longer going to happen. I always tell them that one can never make assumptions about what will happen in aerial combat; there are just too many unknowns to make such assumptions.

@@user-ec8xo7qq1v I would guess your pilot was a former Navy aviator; doing a carrier style landing. 😁

Not everyone. Some pilots complained the gun required the use of a smaller radar and negatively affected handling characteristics due to the extra weight up front.

Not tactics. Training

@@pogo1140 …. New tactic developed, then cadre trained other F-4 crews.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD complaining doesn’t mean they preferred not having a gun.

@Pogo not really a training issue, but a shift in doctrine. Only to realize you had it wrong and should rewrite the playback. You can be highly trained, but crappy doctrine and tools will still waste a good pilot.

respect. thank you.

Thank you for your service. (I lost an uncle there and have his flag). The F4 is still flying in other militaries. My dad was in the new SAC AF, not TAC AF. I’m glad you were skilled enough to survive and are still alive. A pal who was in theater live c-ration butter cake. (He had PTSD)

Hopefully modern friend or foe allows for non-visual launch. Again, thank you for your service & Semper Fi.

It’s strange, though; the F-15 was supposed to have incorporated all of the lessons learned in Vietnam, but I’m pretty sure that it has shot down more enemy aircraft with laser-guided bombs than with its cannon.

@@Shaun_Jones put down the pipe pal. 🤫🙏

Not having a gun AND not having missiles that would hit. If you get into a fight with bad weapons or none, and your opponent has a working weapon, all you can do is run or die.

Yeah. And just like Alex says, what happened in Vietnam was nobodys fault. Everyone had honorable intentions and nobody was ever wrong about anything.

Thanks to Soviet air defense systems, Vietnam successfully dealt with 9 thousand U.S. aircraft. The Vietnamese press reported that due to the presence of Soviet air defense systems in the country, the United States lost a huge number of combat aircraft, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles. A significant number of the latter were shot down by means of combat aircraft of Vietnam, and, apparently, Soviet pilots also made a significant contribution to this. "Few people remember that about half a century ago, in the devastating war with the US Air Force in North Vietnam, the Pentagon used thousands of UAV sorties and new types of aircraft. According to recently declassified US data, during the Vietnam War, the US Air Force lost 9,929 aircraft due to fire damage from the ground, including 3,744 aircraft due to "technical failures", of which 5,607 helicopters of all types, as well as 578 UAVs (UAVs fell mainly in the north of Vietnam). Previously known figures were much lower, and these were the highest losses of the US army in all the wars in which they participated after World War II," the Vietnamese newspaper Soha reports. We are really talking about the largest losses in the ranks of the US Air Force, moreover, at the time of the outbreak of the armed conflict, the US military was armed much better than the Vietnamese army, but thanks to Soviet air defense, even massive attacks were repelled long before American pilots could strike.

Absolutely, my friend. I could not agree more. When politicians insert themselves into warfare, failure seems to follow. Rush Limbaugh used to make a statement which I will paraphrase, ‘Armies are used explicitly for killing people and breaking things, to the point that the engaged enemy surrenders.’ Politicians who reside in the two dimensional world in warfare have much less insight when compared to those individuals who are immersed in the three dimensional world of combat.

​@@marksanney2088Then why did you lose in Iraq and Afghanistan?

But even in the gulf wars the only gun kill was an A-10 shooting a chopper.

But what is "the best?" A maneuverable fighter with a vertical tail that can be detected and tracked via long wave radar? Or a tailless air superiority platform that sacrifices agility for near invisibility? Since we can only have one or the other in our premier anti-air platform, it's a gamble either way. The USAF is gambling we'll keep seeing BVR engagements like those of the last few decades. Going the other way is gambling the S-400 can't track via long wave radar.

Truth is, the best gunslingers understand that one is scared and the other is glad. I salute the F22 pilot that crept up to an Iranian F4 and, once alongside, asked the Iranian to withdraw. Long gone are the daily demands of commands asking for body counts like a football match.

​@@j.f.fisher5318 s-400 is old and can't track well.

​@@j.f.fisher5318we have invested heavily into anti-radiation missiles and electronic warfare aircraft - with the size of the array required to spot a 5th generation fighter at distance, I would think they would be a prime target for cruise missile bombardment before the air invasion

​@@winkingandnodding I get into a gunfight, I'll be neither glad nor scared....just sad that I had to take a human life. Because that dumb sumbitch is going to lose.

Then again, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. There's nothing more frustrating to a fighter pilot than to have an enemy aircraft right in front of him but he can't shoot it down.

What exactly was outstanding about the original F16, from a military perspective? The whole "fighter mafia" stuff was kinda crazy. And the Viper only became one of the best multirole fighters in existence when they dropped all those restraints.

@@termitreter6545 I guess that maybe depends on what we mean by the "original" F-16, to my mind that's the F-16A Block 1. As I see it that F-16 took some of the ideas from the "fighter mafia", such as being highly manoeuverable & low cost, and married it with ideas the "fighter mafia" were initially against, like having a radar. Those instincts to develop a low-cost and agile fighter weren't wrong, and that input was valuable, it's just the idea was better when not taken to an extreme. Often a bunch of people with differing ideas can produce something that's better than any of them individually would have come up with.

guns are plan b like a knife or handgun for a grunt

Actually it will get more relevant since 5th gen fighter jet would only be able to see other in close ranges.

Hopefully true, but remember the enemy will always try to push you into a scenario that favors them. So I think at least some dogfighting skills should be taught. Just like in the army you have a gun, but you should also know how to use a knife.

@@newguy954 Close range combat doesn’t equal a dogfight. Dogfights happen at the merge, but modern fighters have EOTS and IRST capabilities that are impossible to fool and have ranges of 20-30 ish miles. The most you would see is a long range sidewinder shot, an aircraft probably wouldn’t risk a dogfight even if all their missiles were expended.

@@kennethng8346 “Hopefully true” and let me repeat what you said but in different words. This isn’t me saying “omg you dumb dumb you just repeated what I said.” I am just making it clear that what you described is exactly what I am saying. Like yes. True. We need to have a plan for this but it also needs to be recognized for what it is. There is a reason why we don’t see a bunch of knife fights in Bahkmut

You should look into the testing of laser weapons against missiles and artillery projectiles. This could be a future curveball that completely changes the game.

Hey Mishn0, The Fighter Pilot Podcast has a great episode on the F-8 -- you might like it. Through the years I've heard very positive things about that aircraft. Gotta say -- you've got a badass avatar 👍🏽 What unit & where can I read up on it? Would you have a recommended reading list, either fiction or not? Appreciate it 🤙🏽

@@whiskeythree1622 Thanks. VMFA-531, the "Grey Ghosts". The first night fighter squadron in Navy/Marine service. Stood up in 1942 with Brewster Buccaneers (for training), went to the Solomons in 1943 with Lockheed PV-1 Venturas fitted with the British AI Mk. IV radar and extra .50s in the nose. I served with them from '78-'82 at El Toro with F-4Ns (on the flightline right next to VMFA-323 featured prominently in this video). We deployed on the USS Coral Sea with 323 and participated in Carter's Iranian hostage rescue attempt in April of '80. 531 were actually the first fixed wing squadron to be deployed to Vietnam. Not much in the way of a reading list, I'm afraid. Only inclusions in general Marine-Air books and nightfighter stuff as far as I know. They were disbanded in 1992.

@@Mishn0 That's some Legacy right there. Will enjoy checking into some unit history. Appreciate the reply 👍

Also for a long time we have had AWACS that provides a backup to IFF by tracking who is coming and going through the airspace at much greater range. Its a big reason that AWACS is seen as a high value target. Also the data fusion we are using gives us another way of verifying that IFF is right.

In DS 18 kills were made by WVR missiles or BVR missiles launched WVR. 16 kills were BVR and almost all the missiles that missed were launched from BVR. BVR missiles had a kill ratio of 34% while WVR missiles had 67%. Oh and there were 2 guns kills.

Also in 1999 2 F-14's and 2 F-15's lunched 6 BVR missiles (AIM-120,AIM-54, and AIM-7's) were launched at 4 MIG-25. All 6 missiles missed.

Thank you for sharing. I appreciate the statistics. There are a few things: 1. During DS most engagements had to be WVR due to the rules of engagement. We didn't want fratricide. 2. The BVR missiles in 1991 like the AIM 120A were only about 30 miles. Meaning after they shot the first round of missiles, the second round would be WVR. Today at 130+ miles, you'd have to shoot 3 or 4 rounds of missiles before you enter WVR. This is the main reason why the two NGAD programs show fighter jets that don't look super meanuverable but rather super stealthy and low drag. 3. Your stats prove my point. 2 gun kills as opposed to Vietnam. From what I can tell from wikipedia there were about 50 Air to Air gun kills during Vietnam. The main key difference in technology is the computer chip. Old 1970s computers were not that accurate. In early 1990s they were better. Now thirty years after DS, modern missiles have chips that are equal to super computers during the 1970s. If you say the real world combat stats were 34% during DS, then today I am 100% certain the accuracy today is well above 70%. So combining points 2 of range, and 3 of PK. We can calculate the probability of BVR kill in the modern era. At 3 rounds of missiles x 70% real world PK rate, we can use the (Probability of a Series of Independent Events) to calculate the chances of a kill. It is 97.3% of a BVR kill after three rounds of missiles. Thanks for sharing. And have a great weekend.

Yes, that is my read on this as well. But herp derp, DOGFIGHTS AND GUNS.

War is a worst case scenario and is almost always a worst case scenario in the battlefield.

Also flying bricks still aren’t very useful.

@@luigimrlgaming9484 that's not the point.

Typo. 9 of 10 from Concord.

"Want to buy an anti-tiger charm for $5 billion? Why not, it works! There are no tigers in miles of here!" Meanwhile we could buy nice things for ourselves for that money. Like healthcare, or a border wall.

@@Heike-- that's what he security paradox is. If you spent that money on healthcare or a border wall, we would likely end up embroiled in even more expensive and endless wars

The recent RUSI report details that the F-16 is the complete wrong choice for Ukraine, due to the complexity of flight crew and maintenance issues. It details why Gripen is the absolute best option for Ukraine. Simplicity, very short take off so that squadrons can be moved around quickly, and launch surprise attacks from improvised air strips, and finally the capability to carry the Meteor.

@@mountedpatrolman Notice the part where I said aircraft LIKE F-16. I recognize the Gripen is the best FIRST choice for Ukraine due to the superior air to air capability, allowing them to achieve air superiority first. But after that, F-16 would be a fantastic second choice due to the massive reserve of spare parts and pilots who have flown it. 27 countries operate or have operated the Viper, which means there is no shortage of experience or training materials. Viper is also capable of carrying a wider assortment of NATO ground ordinance to put warheads on foreheads and capitalize on the air superiority Gripen gives Ukraine.

@@Registered_Simp Gripen is probably the best platform for Ukraine, but probably not going to happen due to limited availability. The combination of Typhoons with Meteors with a ground attack platform like the F-16 Block50 and/or F-18C (platforms with full HARM integration) would absolutely change the game with the ability to effectively counter both air and ground threats to Ukrainian aircraft conducting ground attack operations. Britain has stated they are willing to provide Typhoons. I expect F-18C's to become available as more F-35's enter service. I wish our leadership could settle on a plan and start training in time to provide support this summer...

I could see BVR quickly devolving into WVR if something isn't done quickly.

@@mountedpatrolman if only the F-20 were available.

We did, just look up the air campaign during Desert Storm. Now all that is required is approval from an AWACS to engage.

F-4s got electro optical systems to identify tracks visually outside visual range. Too late for Vietnam. The F-14 got TISEO. The F-35 had the EOTS/DAS. You can see visually beyond visual range. Lenses and cameras do wonders.

An unmanned drone that suffers a processing error mid flight.

I could only imagine the number of friendly-fire kills there would have been had they regularly launched missiles BVR.

His win was Yuge tho, and managed to escape the Unpresidented negative press covfefe and did it Bigly.

What does this have to do with the video