Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
2 V 2: A-7 Corsairs vs. F-106 Delta Darts
The first part of the title “2 V 2” is shorthand for an air-to-air engagement (air combat maneuvering) involving two aircraft against two other (presumably enemy) aircraft. But a pilot or aviation enthusiast familiar with the iconic F‑106 Delta Dart might be puzzled by the rest of the title. The Corsair II is a capable but unspectacular plow horse in comparison to the Delta Dart, one of the fastest fighter-interceptors ever built! Who in their right mind would conduct air-to-air training involving such grossly mismatched aircraft?
Fun facts: The supersonic F‑106 was introduced in 1956 to foil Soviet Strategic Bomber attacks. It could fly 1,500 mph. (Mach 2.3) and cruise supersonically for 500 miles! By the late ’80s, they were mostly flown by Air National Guard squadrons. They had air-to-air radar and missiles designed to knock down an inbound Soviet Bear bomber outside of visual range. Their main vulnerability was poor rearward visibility for the pilot, and a slower roll at low speed than the Corsair.
The A-7E Corsair II was introduced in 1967. It was a subsonic light bomber with better technology than its contemporaries including an inertial navigation system and weapons control computer plus a HUD (heads-up-display). Its specialty was accurate (in the right hands) urban removal and breaking things. The under-powered Corsair usually carried one Sidewinder missile for self-defense. Air-to-air “dogfighting” was its weakest capability. Even its M61 Vulcan six‑barrel Gatling gun was optimized for air-to-ground strafing rather than against aircraft. It did have slightly better rearward visibility than the F-106 due to the shape of the canopy. (This would become important later in the day…) So it was an exciting surprise when our squadron Operations officer found an Air National Guard (ANG) unit willing to train with us.
That morning we were scheduled for an hour of Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) training (“dogfighting”) against two separate 2-plane sections of ANG F-106’s. I had a six-month carrier deployment under my belt and was flying wingman with my boss, the Admin department head, call sign “Turkey”. My radio call sign was “Turkey 2”.
We flew from our home base at Cecil Field Naval Air Station in Jacksonville Florida over to one of the Tyndall AF Base MOAs (Military Operating Area) located south of Panama City over the Gulf of Mexico. These ranges were great for training because they were radar monitored and air-to-air engagements could be watched live on TV screens on the ground and recorded for later review.
We entered the MOA at 20,000-feet altitude and checked in with the Air Force controllers. They gave us a vector towards the first section of F‑106s, our “adversaries” for the training. We bumped our airspeed up to 350 knots and started looking. (The A-7 doesn’t have air-to-air radar. It’s strictly “eyeballs-only” for enemy aircraft detection.)
I banked sharply away from Lead and spread out into combat formation, flying about a mile abeam to 1) make it harder for the bogies to see both of us, and 2) so we could protect each other’s “6 o’clock”.
I saw them first. “Turkey, two bogies at 2 o’clock high; coming fast!”
“Roger 2. Got ‘em. Fight’s on!”
We both hit full throttle and accelerated downhill into maximum “g” turns (~6 g’s) towards the two incoming aircraft. Our only defense was to try and meet them nose-to-nose and then out-turn them after the pass to try and get to their 6 o’clock for the simulated shot. It was a lot harder than it sounds… (For a more thorough explanation see this Wiki article on Air Combat Maneuvering.)
To maintain our best airspeed in the “6-g” turn (420 knots indicated) we had to sacrifice altitude by going downhill. (The A-7’s engine wasn’t strong enough to overcome the extra drag produced by the wing in a “high-g” turn. If you didn’t descend, you slowed down – dramatically.) That meant that after we turned to meet the attacking F-106s we were below them and pitching back up into them when they streaked by. If they had accelerated away from us using afterburners, all we could have done is turn to face them again and try not to lose sight during the turns. If you lost sight, you were usually “dead” because the “bogie” could get behind you.
Instead, they tried to out-turn us; to reverse their course with tighter and faster turns than ours. In the process, all four aircraft ended up pitching up into a sort of slow flight ballet just above stall speed in which the aircraft that is able to fly the slowest ends up behind the faster aircraft and then “shoots” it down. The A-7’s only advantage was that at these airspeeds, it could roll faster and change its direction more quickly. If the F-106 got behind one of us and tried to match our speed, we could quickly roll one way and then the other, ruining his firing solution until we could get behind him. We held off the first two F-106s and actually got a simulated shot on one using this technique. Then they called “Bingo” signaling that they’d used up all their extra fuel and needed to return to base. It had taken only 30 minutes.
As they headed back to Tyndall, the second section jumped us and we duplicated the events of the previous exchange. When they went slow, we flew slower and were able to survive. At the end of the hour, all four of us headed back to Tyndall to refuel and debrief.
While the aircraft were refueling we went to the ACM training center and reviewed the morning’s events, watching the video replay of both sets of engagements. We’d fought relatively inexperienced pilots that morning but in the afternoon session, we were scheduled to fly against the squadron CO and his wingman and one of their other senior pilots and his wingman. They had watched the morning’s events and saw what had and had not worked. The afternoon session was payback time!
That afternoon their Skipper demonstrated how to use the F-106’s superior speed to completely change the game. The engagements started the same with us turning towards the attacking jets but at the pass, instead of turning, they blew through and accelerated out and up and then began to loop back into the fight in slashing high-speed attacks that prevented us from getting our weapons into position while allowing them to pick us off at a distance. There was nothing we could do if they used this tactic except go lower and lower until we ran out of altitude. And that’s a lousy position to be in.
Both of the two sections we fought that afternoon used this technique and we had no effective defense. It was educational. When we returned to home plate that afternoon and debriefed, we looked for some sliver of consolation. The only thing was the knowledge that the A-7 could fly predictably at low airspeeds and if you knew that the enemy aircraft you were fighting had a slower roll rate, you had a small chance of survival. Thus the lesson learned was to never go toe-to-toe with a fighter aircraft at altitude. Better to get down to tree‑top level where an A-7 pilot is relatively comfortable maneuvering at high speed and “g”, and try to run the other aircraft out of fuel. (Because fighters with afterburners use way more fuel! For example, during both sessions the A-7 had been able to fight at full power for an entire hour while the F‑106s had expended all their fuel in just 30 minutes.
I admit that this was not much of a plan. In the late ’80s there were still some older Soviet fighters that might have been vulnerable to this tactic, but not many. This was one of several reasons that A‑7 Corsair pilots so welcomed the arrival of the F/A-18 Hornet. Finally, we had an aircraft whose performance was limited by what the pilot could endure rather than by its own airframe or engine limitations!
Published in Military
There is little doubt that it has amazing capability. The only problem is the cost. If we keep buying fewer and fewer more capable planes then eventually we will only be able to afford one really awesome plane that has to be everywhere all at the same time.
It’s a cliche because there is truth to the fact that quantity is a quality on its own.
The A-10 Need to be Replaced
By another version of the A-10. The Air Force hate for the plane is, and always has been, stupid.
By the way, the Air FOrce Brass is so stupid, they have been unable to fully replaced the B52
A-10 is a great close air support aircraft. F-35 is first and foremost a fighter. It can carry ordnance for a close air support role but will never be as good as a plane designed specifically for that mission. I think the A-10 may need to be replaced because of one fatal defect. It cannot operate from a carrier deck. Since we have decided that we are going to withdraw from the world stage and leave it to the Chinese and Russians it probably doesn’t have a mission until we lose Canada and Mexico and have to fight inside the US. If we are going to pull back our military to our shores and not have overseas bases anymore the A-10 won’t have an airfield to operate from.
I wonder if survivability is the F35 advantage? Yes, I’ve seen the amazing amount of damage the A10 handles and suspect that the F35 falls short if used in such close quarters. But as a stand-off weapon (something likely less popular with the guys at the pointy end of spear), perhaps? Does F35 have typical fighter’s shorter sticking-around time and lighter ordnance load?
How is F35 against Russian tanks on eastern plains of Europe? Isn’t that the Warthog’s original target?
There is no way the F35 can do the job of the A10.
It can’t even do the job of the F35.
Although the F-35 received a lot of bad press as it rolled out, later testing has been quite favorable as far as its air-to-air capabilities go. See the second link in my comment above.
Having the F35 beat A 10s in dog fight is A ludicrous test. How about seeing how an F35 does with a wing blown off. It’s about seeing how an F35 does with the Match that an A10 can take.
The F35 is another stealth hanger Queen. All the stealth aircraft are hunger queens. The best air superiority fighter ever ever was discontinued so we could build more F35. Why it’s because those are what’s being sold other people in it’s all about money and has nothing to do with the actual defense and security of the United States of America what it has to do with is lining the pockets of defense contractors and paying exorbitant salaries to people who make those decisions and step out of government and then go work for those defense contractors.
Nothing about procurement or access to any military system in this country has anything at all to do with how effective that system is and has everything to do with making people rich. Is tit that’s all all the companies are corrupt then care nothing about supporting our soldiers or airmen or sailors they only care about making money for themselves and whateyet put themselves in whatever system they can sell to whomever they can sell it to. Aint them do handshake deals so they’re taken leave Washington and go be rich working for these contractors.
You have to give me multiple links from people who were not in the military and are not locked to prove to me that the F35 is worth anything.
I just saw something the other day questioning if the F35 could even be an F15.
The first link was about the F-35/A-10 ground attack comparison, and pointed out that it was heavily slanted in favor of the F-35. A-10s have more loitering capability and quicker turnaround time on the ground, but the “rules” didn’t allow those differences to register.
The second link was a description of a Red Flag exercise, where a dedicated Red Squadron (specializing in the tactics of our enemies) try to get “our” planes. The Red force flew F-16’s I believe, and they got clobbered. The F-35s could see targets and point them out electronically to their F-15 comrades.
So it was a type of lie. Proves my point.
How is the F35 in that instance any different than an AWACS? I mean, they are more expensive, less loiter, longer turn around and less effective. 🤷
It made my point. The F-35 is not an A-10 replacement, let alone an upgrade,
It “shot down” 4 F-16s in an hour.
The F15s could have done that with vectors provided.
The ROI for the F35 just does not seem to be there.
Lockheed devolved the P38 how fast? It was produced in huge numbers.
The F22 was prematurely ended for the F35. Are F35s on carriers yet?
OK, I looked it up. Thr first flight was 2006. The plane is not yet in mass production.
One more example of how America can’t do anything anymore. Trillions of dollars spent, and the plane is not yet in production, and one source said lack of parts has grounded 15% of the ones that are supposed to be flying.
Lockheed is in my hometown. I have great affection for the company. And I still do not think this plane has been proven to be worth it. It has shown just how corrupt the processes are.
The USMC has several F-35 squadrons, one used to be my squadron, VMFA-242.
The plane is still not in normal production.
Aircraft do not get churned out like toaster ovens.
I’m not sure what that means. In 2018 they delivered 265 aircraft. That was three years ago. How many do you think constitute “normal” production?
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2021/02/is-the-f-35-program-at-a-crossroads/
According to the Pentagon’s Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) Report:
It has taken too long to be working on this program to get this plane to still be in this sorry state.
From the End of Last year:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38507/its-official-pentagon-puts-f-35-full-rate-production-decision-on-hold
I love this part:
The F-35 is an utter embracement to the whole procurement system and the companies building and supporting it. How much money has been wasted on this thing? It is slower than an F-15 (or F22), It is a worse dogfighter than an F16, It cannot do ground attack like the A-10. Oh, and the FA18 has more bombs. It is stealthy (just not with wing mounts), but so is (was) the F22, which was abandoned for more of this plane.
Oh, wait, it has really neat avionics and when you add one to a fleet of planes it is a huge deal. So what? Avionics and networking controls could be fitted into new runs of old airframes. How do I know? Because the C130 J did just that with the lessons learned from the F22. So, there is not one thing, not one thing, this plane does better than any other plane, or that could not be integrated into a platform that actually performs as promised. 20 years, and we are still not into regular production runs (as per emphasized point above).
All that money could have been spent on better F15s and FA18s and F16s. Quantity has a quality all its own.
The V-22 Osprey was in development for a very long time as well, in 1986 representatives from Allison came by my engine shop and told me to expect to be supporting their engines within a year. That didn’t happen. It’s still a great plane, I really love it.
I’m not going to defend the F-35. It is a monument to procurement officers and the defense industrial complex. Ever since the military created a requirement for large numbers of procurement specialists, the process has slowed to a crawl of imperceptible movement.
And the longer it takes to field a weapon system, the worse it gets if it doesn’t work. Look at the disaster that befell naval aviation when they cancelled the A-12. Medium attack bombers were the sole offensive power of the aircraft carrier task force. Everything else is designed to protect the task force. And we’ve gone three decades without that offensive power, it’s a good thing we haven’t had capable enemies.
Yes