Vietnam air war! (NEW INFO!!! SEEKING FOR THE TRUHT!!!), page 2

Originally posted by jetsetter
The Mig-21 actually carried copies of the sidewinder missile. The story goes that a Taiwanese F-86 fired a sidewinder at a Chinese Mig. The missile hit and got stuck into the side of the Mig. When the Mig landed the Chinese took the missile and reverse engineered it and came up with a copy.

They gave it to SOVIETS that "reverse engineered" it.. and btw they made it better than US variants were..

(at the time, today Russians use superior R-73 while US is still stuck with the Sidewinder..)

Result was K-13 (AA-2 Atoll)

www.fas.org...


In this picture there is IR (K-13, AA-2 Atoll, right one) and SARH (Semi Active Radar Homing, R-3R, in the middle) versions of it.
And the Small missile is R-60 "dog fight missile" (AA-8 Aphid, Left one). All these missiles have been used by MIG-21.

[Edited on 6-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

Originally posted by SectorGaza
yup the sidewinder copy is called the PL-2 / PL-3 / PL-5

Wrong. Chinese copied (license build) the K-13 that was a copy of the AIM-9A/B.


Picture of NVAF J-6/MIG-19, i really arent sure which one it is..

Maybe MIG-19 as Vietnamise didnt like J-6s as they were badly build, had many problems with them..

These were used to great effect as these had GOOD CANNON ARMAMENT OF 3x30mm NR-30 CANNONS.

NR-30 was build in USSR but was designed by ex-nazi designer(s?) Nudelmann (and?) Richter.. NR and -30 for the 30mm caliber..

[Edited on 6-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

All early IR missiles had those locking problems.. targeting the sun or another problems.. they didnt target anything.. and they were all only "tail-chase"..

This one is in Czech but:

www.military.cz...

Gives a hint about yet a another problem.. the G tolerance isnt good at all.. between 3-6g..
and i think that only R-3S and R-3R (3g) were used by NVAF..
Maybe even R-13M (4g), but about this i aint sure..
And btw, at this point it is unclear to me what is this G-figure at this Czech site meaning..
Is it the tolerance of the missile or the max. force of of launcher aircraft during the firing..?

And.. load factor for MiG-21 variants used by NVAF:

During war:
MiG-21PF-V 7,8G
MiG-21PFM 8,5G
MiG-21MF 8,5G
MiG-21UM 7,0G

Later:
MiG-21Bis 8,5G

Claimed:
MiG-21F-13 7,0G

So: any of the MiG-21 variants really didnt have hard time evading the missile or its launcher.. If they the MiG-pilots knew what was coming..


"Khong Quan Nhan Dan Viet Nam" MiG-21 UM "Mongol" Trainer.
By the looks of it the pic is quite new taken in 200x?

*note*

About the MiG in the pic:

The MiG-21 US Mongol B on display was built in Poland in 1970 and served with the Polish Air Force as an advanced trainer. The Cavanaugh Flight Museum purchased the plane in 1993, and it is now painted in North Vietnamese Air Force colors.

God damn!!! Like i have said: It is not easy to find anything real info online about NVAF.
So the plane in the pic looks like a "new" cause it is a god damn museum plane..

www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com...

There more about this NVAF MiG-21 US "Mongol-B".

[Edited on 8-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

Here are some photos of NVA/NVAF:


NVA/NVAF BTR-40 with ZPU-2 14,5mm double HMG.


NVA/NVAF SA-2 missile laucher with a missile.


NVAF Pilots running for their planes, during American attacks.


NVAF MiG-17s ready for action.


NVAF MiG-21 PF:s or MF:s getting ready to meet American attacks. Note that "number 5005" isnt carrying any missiles and none of the pilots are runnig to it.

[Edited on 6-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

Here is another upload by me:


Note the smoke trail from the missile.

MiG shot down

NVAF MiG-17/19/21 gets shot down by US jet firing a AIM-9.

[Edited on 6-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

Here are couple aircraft related pics from South Vietnam where US and ARVN fought the VC and NVA elements.


US stamp during Nam era showing troops dismounting at a hill top.


Napalm burns. Dropped by fighter-bombers in-country. (In south Vietnam..)


10 or 12 UH-1 transports in-flight near Saigon in 1966.


UH-1 picking up troops in South Vietnam or in Cambodia.


This whole post is just a side note, i still want to keep this topic mostly on subject of US air assault/bombing against NORTH.
And in the air-to-air part of that combat. I just posted this as the Nam was first large "helicopter war".

[Edited on 7-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

M-21 weapons system in UH-1 Iroquis gunship. (the miniguns)
And rocket pod for 7 2,75in rockets.


This image shows the system in action.. (firing lots of tracer rounds..) at least that is what i belive,
But it could as well be just door-mounted M134 minigun or M2HB or M-60 also.
Cause the flash on the pic can be either a flare or a rocked exploding.. i dont know.

Again i just posted these as these looked like something "cool and new" to me. (new on only online..)

Reason why these system were deveploved was to give US military more lethal fire power against "Charlie", these "new" weapon systems are/were quite ineffective against anything else but light infantry.
(or against "soft targets".. as 7,62x51mm NATO lack "power at range" 600-800m effective range.. and 2,75in rockets are not effective weapons.. they are quite inaccurate and lack explosive power..)

These were more like lethal crowd control devices. even in 60/70s battlefield these would have been totally useless against any army, but worked well against VC insurgents/guerillas.

Originally posted by jetsetter
Hey, those are some pretty cool photos. Maybe they should of used the 20mm minigun. The Vulcan.

M61A1 "Vulcan" 20mm 6 barreled gatling cannon would have had "little" too much kick for the tiny UH-1.

Like the GAU-8.. had "little" too much kick for the A-10.. First test firing and the prototype crashed when firing the cannon.. it made its speed slow down below "stall speed" at low level..

www.fas.org...

Did you btw know that A-10 was designed for Nam as a cessna A-37 "Dragonfly" replacement..
It just came too late.. For any action in SEA.

Also I would suggest that you go to www.globalsecurity.org... for you military information needs.

Originally posted by jetsetter
Yes, actually I did know that the A-10 was developed for the asian conflict.

Funny how "pentagons" fact sheet doesnt mentions this fact..

www.af.mil...

Maybe Nam is something that they dont want to talk about.. like so many other Americans also..


Cessna A-37 Dragonfly attack aircraft that was replaced by A-10 in USAF service.
Here seen in Nam in VNAF colors. (South Vietnam airforce..)

Originally posted by jetsetter
Also I would suggest that you go to www.globalsecurity.org... for you military information needs.

Thanks man, but i have "had" that page for quite some time..

And there really isnt much more that i could possibly learn about war/military things.

Only couple old and all new things that havent yet happened.

I am a walking military encyclopedia..

That for the BS, here one more good pic:


NVA S-75 complex firing SAM missile. (SA-2 launch site..)

[Edited on 7-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

Here i found USAF F-105/F-4 pilots "memories":

www.sponauer.com...

Q: How did NVAF air defenses effect or alter your tactics? What were the NVAF air defenses like in 1966? Later in the war, when you were flying F-4’s?

A: In the summer of ’66 the major news magazines like Time and Newsweek were already referring to the area around Hanoi as “the most heavily defended in the history of aerial warfare.” The SA-2 was the new threat and it was significant, both psychologically and in terms of its effect in the integrated air defense. Most losses were to guns, but the SAM forced you lower and that meant more guns had a shot at you.

Guns ranged from peasants with rifles to automatic weapons like heavy machine guns to heavy AAA. The anti-aircraft guns in ’66 were mostly 37/57mm fired in barrage sectors and 85mm fired optically or with FireCan radar guidance. Intel reported guns as big as 100 and 130mm but there was no way to distinguish in flight from the 85s.

MiGs flew occasionally and were always a threat. There were a lot of ‘17s and some ‘21s in ’66. A lot is made of the kill ratio during Rolling Thunder, but the fact is that there weren’t many opportunities. The MiGs flew to disrupt the bombing flights and the 105s primary job was to deliver iron on targets.

During Linebacker, the threat had shifted. There were a lot more SAM sites, a lot more MiGs and a lot more mobile triple A. There were fewer 37/57 and I don’t recall seeing much 85mm flak during ’72 but there were a lot of high-speed 23mm guns. We were better equipped, with good radar coverage from Disco and Red Crown plus we had Combat Tree for the specialists out of Udorn. The 105G Weasel was much better able to detect and discriminate enemy radars and the Shrike had really improved. We used a lot of chaff, dropped in corridors to support the bomb flights and we had much improved pods and RHAW. Losses in Linebacker, while still considerable, were much lighter than during ’66 and ’67 in Rolling Thunder.

So, flying low to avoid even getting to the firing envelope of SAM:s seems to explain why most shot downs were to the AAA..

Q: Did you ever engage a MiG? See one? Any buddies who did? Any eyewitness accounts?

A: There are a couple of MiG encounters in my book. I nearly got hacked by a MiG-17 and got close enough to watch the incredibly huge muzzle flashes of his 37mm cannon shooting at me. I also came within an unreasonable distance of joining up with a flight of three MiG-21s near Haiphong. My squadron commander, Fred Tracy, got the first MiG with a 105 on June 29th, and I was supposed to be flying on Karl Richter’s wing in July when he got his -17.

Got hacked? Does he mean shot down?

Q: Did you see coordinated air defense tactics between SAMs, AAA and MiGs? How'd they do it?

A: Absolutely! They were well coordinated. A lot of the guns were radar guided. The heavy guns were radar aimed and the lighter guns were alerted and pre-directed to lay barrages in coordinated sectors. When the guns open up just as you start the pop-up in the target area and when the flak is so thick that you can’t see across the formation, you know the defense is integrated. Mixing MiGs and SAMs without fratricide is not a simple task.

SAM tactics were continually developing. They quickly went from the classic sequence of launching described in the Soviet manuals dating back to Gary Powers’ shoot-down to much more creative application. They learned to feed data to the missile by hard wire prior to firing, they learned to fire in pairs or more, they learned to coordinated several sites to support each other and they learned to fire ballistically and then take control for guidance after booster drop-off. We learned to stuff Shrikes down their throat and cover the site with CBU anytime we could find them. I wouldn’t want to have been a SAM crewman.

The 105 held the distinction of being the fastest airplane in the world below 10k feet at that time. The only way a MiG could beat us is through an unseen intercept or if we were foolish enough to try to dog-fight with them. If they didn’t kill on the first contact, we could simply run away. If they blundered out in front of us, we shot them. Unfortunately, we didn’t have good air-to-air training in those days and we didn’t know much about mutual supporting tactics. It was only by the end of Linebacker that we were really beginning to teach the concepts of good BFM and fluid attack. There were always good fighter pilots, but we lost a lot of guys because of lack of training for the rest. The “welded” fighting wing thinking of WW II and Korea cost a lot of guys their freedom for five or six years.

Well, all defences working together is the only good way to "do it".. After all it is a "team game"..

Q: How would you rate the skill of the North Vietnamese pilots or AAA crews?

A: The gunners and missile crews were incredibly disciplined and effective. The MiG crews were good, but were hampered by the Soviet close-control doctrine that didn’t really offer them much flexibility. Think about it—if you had a light, maneuverable airplane and had strings of enemy aircraft appearing over your airfield twice a day, how many could you shoot down?

We did allready knew that the NVA and NVAF were good.. at least i did.. And the remark about "Soviets tactics" isnt the truht.. Vietnamese did deveplope their own tactics.. And it seems to me that he admits that MiG:s were a real problem.. nothing to walk over..


F-105 seen here from a USAF tanker aircraft, was (and still is?) the largest single engine fighter plane to ever fly!

"Firing his 20mm cannon at point-blank range, Major Kuster hits the left wing of the MIG near the fuselage and it bursts into flames. The major's F-105 passed 15 - 20 feet below the flaming MIG."

NVAF MiG-17 downed by an F-105D flown by Maj. Ralph Kuster, USAF June 3, 1967.

[Edited on 7-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 11 days ago with 9 member flags

First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags

F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 3 days ago with 4 member flags

Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 7 days ago with 3 member flags

Dassault Rafale wins India\'s biggest fighter deal for $10.4 billion
  Posted 12 days ago with 1 member flags

Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 16 days ago with 0 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: