The F-4 Phantom II: Was a Gun Really the Solution?

[@dalek14mc]

Corrections: As some of you have pointed out, the CF-100 and the F-101 were actually designed with guns. Hello, everyone. There seems to be a large influx of commenters on this video, which leads me to believe that it’s being shared somewhere. I think I need to explain the purpose of this video, because it seems we’re getting a little confused. Many people are bringing up the rules of engagement over Vietnam. While it is true that US pilots had to visually identify their targets, that doesn’t really have anything to do with the video. The purpose of bringing up the F-4 phantom has three purposes. It is to: 1. Address the claim that it was designed without a gun because “The US was moving towards BVR combat,” which is not true. 2. Address the claim that the missiles were “terrible.” Which is not true. 3. Address the claim that the gun was a solution. Which is, again, not true. It appears that a lot of the new commenters are not even watching the video, as I’m getting a lot of “the gun was part of the problem” type comments. I’d like to reiterate, the gun was NOT the solution. The Air Forces Kill-to-loss ratio had *worsened* after the introduction of the F-4E.

[@Akm72]

I think it's just the idiosyncrasies of the youtube algorithm, I was pointed to it by youtube.

[@dat581]

No facts please. The anti-F-35 fanboys love their myths.

[@galenoestrike945]

A large issue not addressed at all was the ROE or rules of engagement that required pilots to get a visual idententification of the target. Thus the pilots could not engage in a closing bvr engagement as they were trained to.

[@dat581]

@@galenoestrike945 They could still use the missiles as designed instead of firing them outside parameters as they often did. The reliability of Vietnam Era missiles that were fired inside their design parameters was far higher than the figure quoted for all missiles fired.

[@jettsetter7]

Hey man, great video. From my knowledge, (1) The designers didn’t put a gun on the Phantom because it was designed to shoot down large bombers from a distance; (2) The missiles *were* terrible at first in Vietnam, go listen to every pilot on KZbin who used them in Nam; and (3) The gun could have most certainly been a solution many times when F-4’s in Nam found themselves in the saddle behind Migs and were out of missiles. Olds said he could have shot down 9 more Migs with a gun, do I believe that? Probably not, but I’m sure he’s not too far off.

[@kennetthmitchell6226]

In my experience in Vietnam when working as a Phantom Fixer, the pilots only complained and wanted guns because they had run out of missiles and still had kills in range but had to high tail it out because they were out of weapons, or were too close for missiles. That is what I remember the complaint was when debriefing. I would hear so many times "Darn he was right there, only if I had a gun."

[@DeadEndGoose]

Thank you for your service. My grandfather worked on helicopter and jet engines, during Vietnam. Comments like these make me smile and think of him, take care - you're a living legend

[@Dalekssupreme]

You bloody murderer.

[@refractorymercury]

Respect

[@razetedgy3963]

I think you missed another point that might explain the kill to lose ratio,according to the roles of engagement over Vietnam pilots had to visually identify the target before shooting to avoid friendly fire, so BVR weapons like the aim 7 could not be used at their maximum range and in ideal conditions, that's also why late F4E's and F 14 have the TCS camera

[@AbcdEfgh-sq2tf]

Almost forgot about that point yea That rule is pretty much why guns are more useful back in Vietnam than early gen missiles

[@Registered_Simp]

I mean... that was until Combat Tree was introduced en-mass (Yes, IK many times VID was required. But multiple accounts of pilots being hit from absolutely nowhere in the NV Airforce speak for themselves)

[@GM-xk1nw]

IFF was used in ww2, try another one.

[@Registered_Simp]

@@GM-xk1nw Can you give a source as to what this mythical IFF transponder was in WW2 that actually classifies as an IFF? Cause that was when radar systems were just beginning to become mainstream. I find it hard to believe IFF existed in the same time frame

[@markhamersly1664]

All, The narrator forgets to look at the PERFORMANCE of the missiles themselves. The AIM-7 hit its target somewhere like 1 out of 15 firings. The AIM-9 a bit more, and the older AIM-4 was horrible, so bad so that Colonel Robin Olds ordered the taken OFF every single airplane in his Wing. Hammer Korat RTAFB, 1973 - 1974.

[@JETZcorp]

I talked with a former USAF Phantom pilot at an air museum who said he hated the gun. He said his older model without the gun had a much lighter nose and was noticeably more maneuverable. He said a gun didn't do you any good if you couldn't get behind the MiG in the first place.

[@wwclay86]

Deflection shooting. You don't have to be behind a enemy only to kill them with a gun..

[@JETZcorp]

@@wwclay86 The point is, you can't shoot a guy if he's on your six.

[@adrianstachowski9422]

@@JETZcorp Tu95 back turret wants to know your location xD

[@ryanvandoren1519]

@@adrianstachowski9422 this is in the context of a dogfight... bombers ain't gonna be dog fighting.

[@adrianstachowski9422]

@@ryanvandoren1519 ok, then replace tu95 with bristol f.2 :p

[@brainfart22]

When it comes to the Phantom, I don't think the air force knew what it was doing at all. The original 9B Sidewinders were of course terrible, so the Navy ordered improved versions the D and the G. Offering off boresight aiming, increased agility, cooled seekers, and even radar cueing in the case of the G. The air force decided none of these improvements were for them, and ordered an the 9E, which only offered the off boresight abilities of the 9D. Otherwise it was basically a 9B, down to the uncooled seeker It wouldn't be until '72 that the air force pulled their head out of their ass and ordered a good missile. A further testament to the increased lethality of the Navy F-4s post Topgun are reports from the North Vietnamese telling them to avoid the "white jets" later in the war. By this point only Navy jets, were painted this way. I do feel that the only reason the F-35A has a gun is to shut up two camps of people. The "F-4 had no gun therefore bad" people and the "A-10 has gun therefore good" people. As I'm sure you know the internal gun of the F-35A has less ammo and is currently less accurate than the podded versions. Never mind if you need the stealth of not carrying a gun pod, you won't be doing strafing runs anyway. Those two camps are unlikely to look into it deeper. These people are unlikely to appreciate the advancement of missile technology too. Its my opinion (as a guy on the internet) that while the dogfight may not be completely dead, high off boresight missiles have replaced the gun in a close fight. Furthermore the fact that they think that fights will evolve just like in Vietnam is very dumb. I'd compare it to saying "Muskets have a low rate of fire, therefore an assault rifle is a dumb choice for a modern army" While these missiles may have had problems in Vietnam, it has been about 60 years since. The kinks have been ironed out. I don't think the F-35 not carrying sidewinders internally is a huge issue either. The Syrian jet that got shot down a few years ago illustrated this well. The Super Hornet fired a sidewinder which missed for whatever reason, then the pilot fired an AIM-120 at sidewinder ranges which did hit the target. I consider this evidence that modern BVR missiles, while far from ideal in a close range engagement, are not nearly as useless as the early sparrows were.

[@AbcdEfgh-sq2tf]

The F-35 was originally slated to replace the A-10 before that was ruled out. I think by that time it was too late to go back to the drawing board to remove the gun so Lockheed just went ahead with the original unmodified design

[@asherwiggin6456]

The AIM-9B was nicknamed the “sandwinder” by USAF pilots since it would crash into sand

[@gotanon8958]

B and C variant says Hi. And as for F-35A having an internal gun... (Its is better to have a capability and not use it than to need that specific capability and not have it).

[@Tank50us]

@@gotanon8958 that's a lot of it. But something I think some people miss entirely is that when it comes to the B and C, their runways tend to move. Landing on a ship is no easy feat, and the gas required to operate at sea means that the internal gun needs to go and make way for fuel. Another key thing to remember is that while the gun pod was designed with the F35 in mind from day one, it was also designed to be expendable if required. If a pilot were, for whatever reason, forced to shed excess weight to safely bring the Lightning aboard, they can jettison the pod, along with any other weapons still attached to the aircraft. The USN, and USMC, place great emphasis on the pilot and plane. Bringing both home is seen as more valuable to them, than the gun pod.

[@glassfullofmilk]

We also have to remember that these missiles were originally built to intercept Bombers carrying Nuclear bombs GAR8 was built to lock onto these bombers and blow them out of the sky as a much more effective and safer alternative to strafing with guns, Vietnam really was the first time that these missiles were really tested aside from small incidents such as over Taiwan. Improvements in Testing Policy and procedure of these missiles was probably one of the best things to come out of the Fighter mafia era instead of testing on targets that do not represent in field scenarios. Coupled with better training, better tactics, better systems, and better handling/storage we have what happens during the Gulf war, Pilots more than capable of destroying their enemy and well trained in the proper Envelope for deployment of their missiles.

[@SoloRenegade]

Haven't watched it yet, but here's what I know going in. The F-4 was designed as a missile INTERCEPTOR, to intercept enemy bombers, and up to that point only one US interceptor had a gun, the F-104. All other US interceptors were built without a gun. It later proved to be a capable fighter and multirole aircraft, but it was not designed to perform that role. Once Top Gun was established and pilots were taught how to use the new missiles properly, the kill ratio improved dramatically and effectively in Vietnam, proving the F-4 could dogfight and win with only missiles.

[@TLTeo]

And the irony is that technically the F-104 wasn't designed as an interceptor anyway - hence the USAF versions having basically no all-weather capabilities, nor the avionics to interface with the ADC ground controllers. Kelly Johnson hoped it would be a light weight daytime fighter, it just so happened to be an excellent export interceptor, especially when the avionics were improved. And on top of that, the F-104S ASA/ASAM, the ultimate interceptor variant, stopped carrying the gun in favor of the antenna needed to fire BVR missiles.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@apis_aculei The F-4 was designed as a fleet defense Interceptor, not a as a multirole fighter. It was turned into a multirole fighter later. The Navy fighter of the time was the F-8, and it was an excellent fighter for its time (which was also turned into a multirole aircraft later).

[@confuse9]

Sorta like the F15 - designed as an air superiority fighter, only to find out the big wing, with lots of lift, can carry a lot of bombs. Early in the F15 development, I remember (as a kid) everyone complaining how expensive of a plane it was. The F16 was supposed to be 1/2 price. Seems like the same arguments on the F22 and now the F35. You'd think at some point they take lessons learned and apply it to a cheaper design.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@confuse9 Historically in my opinion, the best way to design a great multirole fighter has been to first design a great fighter. Then later turn it into a multirole fighter. F4U, P-47, A-36, A-7, F-4, F-15E, F-16 and F-16XL, etc. If you want a dedicated bomber or attack aircraft then go for that separately (B-29, B-2, B-52, Mosquito, A-1D, A-10, IL-2, etc.)

[@katherineberger6329]

"Flying Brick" is a great nickname for the F-4 Phantom but even better is its German nickname: The "Air Defense Diesel."

[@killian9314]

The vietnamese feared the "grey" phantoms more than the "green" ones. forgot where i heard this claim, could have been the history channel, but let the usn's exploits without the gun not be understated. If anything adding the gun back is what solidifies the myth of the gun being ultra necessary for the program at the eyes of some.

[@MikoyanGurevichMiG21]

Well, if said "green" Phantom was flown by a certain Robin Olds, perhaps that was an exception

[@IgnoredAdviceProductions]

On the F-4E, the original gun muzzle caused a few problems. Firstly gas ingestion into the engine inlets caused engine flameouts and secondly it made a loud whistling noise that apparently notified the enemy troops (and their Dogs presumably ) long before the F-4 got there. The muzzle had to be redesigned and the later F-4Es have a longer gun muzzle under the nose. The gun assembly and ammo drum took up a lot of space in the nose and the dish/antenna size was reduced. The Westinghouse APQ-120 was an early ‘Solid State’ radar (derived from the APQ-109) and being Solid State must have helped in reducing the obvious vibration issue when you have a massive Gatling gun sitting next to 1960s electronics. Despite this it still exceeded the reliability requirements and was similar in that regards to the F-4D radar that had no gun in the nose. Ex F-4 flyer Walt BJ stated that the APQ-120 in the F-4E had about 20-25% less range over the APQ-109 in the F-4D. During Operation Linebacker I & II (1972/73): >The USAF F-4E had 22 claims in 25 (known) engagements including 7 gun kills >The USAF F-4D had 27 claims in 30 (known) engagements with no gun kills "The gun pod wasn’t so much a speed penalty as an object of increased drag and fuel consumption. But that wasn’t my objection to the gun pod, I refused to carry it for 3 basic reasons; It took the place of five or six 750 lb bombs. Only my older and more experienced fighter pilots had ever been trained in aerial gunnery, to say nothing of air-to-air fighting. There were perhaps a dozen of them in the 8th TFW. I had no intention of giving any of my young pilots the temptation to go charging off to engage MiG-17s with a gun. They would have been eaten alive. Instead they fought MiGs the way I taught them and did so with notable success." -Col. Robin Olds And some more "nameless" pilot testimony: 10 July 1965 USAF F-4C front seat pilot "Gun not necessary; it will get people into trouble. Would like capability to fire all missiles on the F-4 with Centreline Tank on. Less minimum range for missiles instead of guns…….Because lack of ACT at time of event, did not know how to manoeuvre the F-4 as well as he could later after some experience." 23 April 1966 USAF F-4C front seat pilot "Improve the performance of the AAM and the gun will not be needed…………Training safety restrictions severely limited air-combat-tactics training prior to deployment to the combat area." 23 April 1966 USAF F-4C front seat pilot "The need for a F-4 gun is overstated, although it would be of value if it could be obtained without hurting current radar and other system performance. If you are in a position to fire guns, you have made some mistake. Why after a mistake would a gun solve all problems. Also having a gun would require proficiency at firing, extra training etc. Have enough problems staying proficient in current systems. If the F-4 had guns, we would have lost a lot more, since once a gun dual starts the F-4 is at a disadvantage against the MiG." 25 April 1966 USAF F-4C back seat pilot "Gun is not particularly desirable, if the performance of the aircraft is degraded by an external installation. Also, one might make the mistake of getting into a turning battle if a gun was available." 26 April 1966 USAF F-4C front pilot "A gun would be nice in an F-4C as long as it was clearly understood it was only a weapon of last resort. Soviet fighters are more capable than US aircraft inside gun range." 29 April 1966 USAF F-4C front seat pilot "It would be undesirable and possibly fatal for an F-4 to use a gun in fighting with a MiG because the MiG is built to fight with guns and the F-4 is not." 30 April 1966 USAF F-4C front seat pilot "Training was not really adequate for this engagement, didn’t know what the back should do in a hassle such as this." 14 June 1966 USN front seat pilot "Guns would be most useful for the ResCAP role but not particularly valuable in the air to air role."

[@everythingman987]

The Navy's Ault Report changed the way missiles were handled on carrier decks and TOPGUN introduced skilled instructors into the fleet. The Air Force in my opinion was still hampered by the pre-Vietnam Curtis LeMay culture that focused heavily on strategic nuclear assets and neglected the tactical arena. It took the Air Force longer to adapt to a tactical air combat environment than the Navy, and both branches reached different conclusions to the kill ratio problem after Vietnam. The Air Force saw in it's data that a pilot who survives their first 10 combat missions is statistically unlikely to be shot down, and that the aircraft to detect and shoot at the enemy first is most likely to win an engagement. This lead to Red Flag and a focus on stealth technology while the Navy kept it's focus on dissimilar air combat training and TOPGUN. Until the Air Force Weapons School was reformed in 1980 and the Eagle community began focusing on air superiority, the Navy was probably far ahead in terms of pure air to air combat skill. That "ideological split" between the Air Force and Navy that came from different interpretations of lessons learned in Vietnam has impacts that are still very visible today, even if tactics and weapons training has become similar in both branches. The Navy lacks interest in stealth and is reluctant to buy the F-35C. it's main focus to get around enemy air defenses and radar is EW with the Growler. the Air Force has been focusing on stealth for over four decades now.

[@edwardpate6128]

And of course stealth an oversold myth.

[@M85331]

I have been curious for a while why the US pours huge money into development of stealth jets given the effectiveness of Growler.

[@darbyheavey406]

Operation BOLO proves that it’s not that simple…good leadership and tactics under Col. Olds was decisive. However, All the kills in BOLO came from AIm-7/9

[@josephahner3031]

​@@M85331 It's good to have both capabilities. There is a bit of a downside to the Growler as your jamming does alert enemy air defences and fighters to the presence of a strike group and gives at least an azimuth to follow even if you can't get a firing solution. A lucky shot from an alerted medium range infrared or laser/optically guided weapon could potentially still pose a threat against a strike group relying on jamming only. Having stealth is one more layer to your protection onion and is a passive protection measure that doesn't alert the enemy. So F-35 which has both stealth and reasonably good jamming capabilities can keep the jammers off until they get to detection range can then flip the jammers on and have much greater surprise for an enemy while still being well protected from radar guided weapons over their weapon launch area.

[@COLT6940]

@@M85331 overwhelming offensive ans defensive tactics.

[@left_ventricle]

This video is over a year old but I want to add quite a few things that may be useful to some viewers. Starting with the premise of the video, this is the topic I never knew existed until I watched this. So, either it’s a pretty niche claim that people make with only the shallowest basis, or I was oblivious. Perhaps any one of the viewers could be either of the two. About his points regarding the F-4, the Navy’s tactics, and invalidity of F-35’s criticisms are both valid and could be a little more complete. It’s totally valid in a sense that different weapon platforms with different purposes have different requirements. Not having a forward-firing gun, which was pretty large at that point, possibly allowed for a neater installation of larger radar. And the philosophy is quite clear if you consider that… 1) The F-4 is a fairly long range fighter, with little to no emphasis on air combat manoeuvres. 2) The F-4 is designed with two crew stations in mind. 3. The design program can find its roots back to F3H Demon. At least at the earliest stages, the plane has nothing to do with the air force. Considering that F8U-3 lost out to the F-4, where the two planes were somewhat of an opposite design, it shows where the Navy’s thinking went to. However, at least from what I think, there is a bit more to this argument. Consider that… 1) Back when each one of the F-4s were slinging up to four early to mid AIM-7s at enemy fighters, not many counter-BVR tactics existed, and if they did, I highly doubt the message reached to Vietnamese pilots. 2) The purpose of the gun was not to be served as a primary air-to-air weapon. Instead, it was to compensate and equip the plane for situations like: where the radar was ineffective for various potential reasons, when you run out of missiles, and if you encounter a surprise attack from the directions you did not expect and etc etc. So there is no doubt that once A) The rules of engagements are dropped from practice and missile uses are better understood, B) The equipments are better maintained and therefore does not suffer from misfire, The overall combat effectiveness of the F-4 of course went a mile higher. The key point here, at least as I see, is that this is entirely outside of the argument of having an internal gun installed. Speaking of that, F-35s are designed more or less as a data centre of battlefield. On its own, it is a strong opponent to whatever you face. Together, and especially in conjunction with other aircrafts serving within the battlefield together with the F-35, it works more as a god’s eye plane, and less as a one-man ramming himself into the enemy furball and slinging missiles at people. Perhaps this idea originates from simulator worlds. The real world military is not the same. Either way, the point is, there is little to no need for an F-35 to even get into the situation where an internal gun would be needed, and considering what varients are serving with which military, it’s pretty clear to me that A) If you need an aircraft with an internal gun, they already have it. B) If they want an F-35 with an internal gun, they are replacing most everything within service and becoming a new front-line aircraft. And I mean, an F-22 is built with a gun and 2D thrust vectoring, as well as subtly large vortex-generating strakes alongside the fuselage, despite its inherent focus on the BVR combat. F-35 is nowhere near that. It’s much important to an F-35 crew and their missions that they stay well outside of the detection range of most other enemies, while they themselves basically boost the capabilities of other integrated weapon systems within the tactical forces. So, the conclusion: First, a gun was not a solution to F-4’s poor initial performance. But the point of having a gun was not to replace the missiles, and rather, it was to give pilots something to do when they can’t use the missiles. Second, some F-35s not having a gun is not a detriment on its own. The type of missions it will carry out, and the missiles it was designed to carry, are clearly much better focused on long range combat, and even more so about datalink and sensor fusion. Within these scenarios, not having a gun is probably not even noticeable. Lastly, to the creator himself, I appreciate your effort. But I feel like your videos can come as a bit argumentative, and somewhat nit-picky. That was my initial impression from the video, and perhaps that conveys how annoyed you were at these shallow comments. I am too. But if you’d allow me, I’d suggest these are not the ‘myths’ to combat against. You sir, deserve to spend your time having more quality engagements. Wish you all the best.

[@skyscall]

As an avid flight sim nerd, I have more to add. The Air Force's Phantoms and Sidewinders were objectively **worse.** I can tell you for a fact that the Air Force's AIM-9Bs and 9Es were absolute hot garbage. Launching them at any range further than 1.5 miles is a guaranteed miss as the missile fails to catch up to the target if they're at any decent speed. The 9E has some limited off-boresight capability which you can abuse and use to lead the missile into wherever the target is turning, but even then somehow they find a way to miss. If your target isn't flying in a near enough straight line, and you aren't right on their six, and you're further than 1.5 or closer than .5 miles, you basically guarantee a miss. It wasn't until the AIM-9J that the Air Force had a competent missile, and even that had absolutely nothing against an AIM-9D. The Navy's AIM-9Gs and Ds on the other hand, are slower missiles with much better agility and much longer-burning rocket motors compared to Bs, Es, and Js. The G also has a much, *much* larger off-boresight capability than the Air Force's AIM-9E. They can turn and turn and turn, pulling 25 Gs longer than a missile of the era has any right to and will track down a target without giving two shits. MiG-21s would need to be absolutely fully aware of an AIM-9G on their ass, then throttle back their engine and do some absurd barrel rolling to have a shot at dodging it. MiG-17s practically can't do a thing, even if fully aware. The US Navy's later Phantoms, namely the F-4J and the S, also had pulse-doppler radar sets with look-down/shoot-down capability, capable of tracking enemy fighters against the ground and at low altitudes. F-4Cs and Es radars don't have pulse-doppler capability and become practically unusable when below 6,000 feet or when the nose is pointed down, easily losing radar lock. The Sparrow *requires* the plane to maintain lock throughout the missile's flight time until it hits the target - if the mothership loses radar lock the missile is a dud. Without pulse-doppler radars or _any_ form of LD/SD, Air Force Phantoms were blind at low altitudes and unable to use Sparrows unless the enemies were above them. MiG-21s equipped with RWR would know that a Sparrow was headed their way, and all they'd have to do against an Air Force Phantom is simply dive below the Phantom to get the missile to lose track and miss - a technique that would do nothing against the F-4J and F-4S' pulse-doppler radars.

[@piscessoedroen]

As someone who isn't an avid sim player, but plays a similar game where different missile iteration matters, i can vouch for the early USAF missile being hot garbage is true. Curse them for making me have to research 2 useless missiles before being able to play competitively with the 9J

[@ilikegliding]

As a so-so Time Pilot player in the 80's, I cant really say...

[@urban4957]

@@piscessoedroen gotta love gaijin Entertainment...

[@piscessoedroen]

@@urban4957 for this one instance, gaijin is not guilty. Fuck you vietnam-era USAF

[@skyscall]

@@piscessoedroen War Thunder is honestly surprisingly realistic and accurate for such a mainstream game. I can't name any other game as popular that goes into details so small as the individual wing area of each missile, their motor burn time and motor thrust, and control surface areas - details that small are usually only reserved for DCS and similar sims. In other words, in terms of flight models and missile mechanics, it's right up there with the rest of the flight sims. It just happens to be a flight sim where you can hit a big red Battle button and get dropped into a 10v10 TDM in an instant, rather than all the hours of setup bullshittery your average DCS player will *insist* is 100% required before every single engagement.

[@jedijc5411]

Why do people keep Forgetting that all Three F-35 Versions are "Fighter-Bombers" (Joint Strike). Not "Interceptor," or "Air Superiority" Fighters. For Example...... The F-16 Started out, on the Drawing Board, as a Short Range "Interceptor" to be Cheaper answer to the "Air Superiority" F-15. However, the F-16 was then Forced to have a "Ground Strike" capability. Again, All Three F-35 Versions are "Fighter-Bombers" from the Drawing Board to the Built Aircraft Flying from a ship or air base.

[@martijn9568]

It's also important to not forget that both the US and all of the counties participating in the F-35 program have had 20 years of fighter bomber experience, most with the F-16 in Afghanistan. It wouldn't surprise me that they have got some data to back up their reasons for certain design features.

[@diabolicwave7238]

@@tinmansscalemodels 'Most with the F-16 in Afganistan'. For goodness sake, read what he wrote properly instead of going off on one, you look silly.

[@tinmansscalemodels]

@@diabolicwave7238 . Okay my bad. Removed the offending comment because I wouldn't want to be the only person on the whole planet that's ever made a mistake

[@tonysu8860]

Whatever the removed comment was, it should not be overlooked that some have been selling the F-35 as capable of everything including air superiority, relying on its stealth capability to shoot down every opposing air superiority fighter in existence. And, the potential retirement or inadequate numbers of F-22 could mean that the F-35 could be pressed into the role of an air superiority fighter. Although the F-35 was designed to be a multi-role fighter, it should also be recognized that its internal payload capacity is very tiny compared to... for example an F-15 which probably can carry 8x the armament because it doesn't care about being stealthy.

[@cstgraphpads2091]

@@tonysu8860 Who has been selling the F-35 as an air superiority fighter? KZbinrs? Why would the F-35 be "pressed into the role" at all? Where is the evidence of retirement of the F-22? "Inadequate" numbers of the F-22 occurred due to the timing of their development and the choice to allocate the money spent on it instead to developing the F-35. That doesn't mean that the F-35 would be used to replace the F-22 or to be put into the primary roles of the F-22/

[@skylerslack12]

The "combat tree" technology is interesting, using the enemies own IFF transponder to ID them before they even saw them was cool

[@tombrunila2695]

Take also a look "Teaball tactic" and how it improved the ability to fight. It was about knowing what the enemy was up to.

[@firstduckofwellington6889]

I doubt transponders would be used by military aircraft

[@tombrunila2695]

@@firstduckofwellington6889 , the IFF, Identification Friend or Foe, was used in order NOT to be shot down by own SAM's.

[@marrvynswillames4975]

I think Osprey's F4 vs Mig 21 even said that only one F4 was shot down by a mig 21's gun, the main weapon was always the rockets

[@BARelement]

Unguided rockets? That’s weird.

[@majorborngusfluunduch8694]

*missiles

[@krystalstarrett6760]

Rockets, good. Rockets AND GUNS...BETTER..

[@pogo1140]

That's because that was the tactic, fly behind the F-4, come it at supersonic or near supersonic, launch at 1-1/2 mile then dive for home regardless if the missile hits or not. It's how the NVAF fought and it was sensible when you consider they never had more than 2 dozen MiG-21's in the entire country at any given time. Also many of those MiG-21's did not have a gun either, just 2-4 missiles, usually just 2 missiles.

[@5t3v0esque]

The avro arrow didn't have a gun huh... "I used a meme to destroy the meme"

[@MRxMADHATTER]

Excellent points to remember. People make too many assumptions from popular belief. Guns are nice to have in very specific circumstances, but over-all not that big of a factor for a giant interceptor turned fighter like F-4. That's why they came up with a dedicated dog fighter like the F-16. And in a stealth weapon like the F-35, the object is to never give the enemy anything to shoot at.

[@jamallabarge2665]

"And in a stealth weapon like the F-35, the object is to never give the enemy anything to shoot at." While physics doesn't change weapons do change. The F-35 is not really invisible, it's just tough to see under certain conditions. The goal is economy of force. A gun may not make sense, it might make sense.

[@MRxMADHATTER]

I know. I built F-35s. The A model (Air Force CTOL version) does have a gun. The B&C models don't. But they can carry an external gun pod, when stealth is not an important factor. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJivm4Gpd8Sbr68

[@questofknowledge8788]

Crew training and weapon maintenance was definitely the biggest lesson learned in Vietnam. Sadly these lessons were only learned through blood (USS Forrestal fire accident). As per BVR combat itself, it is much more skill based than people understand, some examples being aspect ratio, range, MAR, WEZ, vertical/horizontal notching, radar azimuth/elevation, etc. The Air Force seems to always take the wrong lessons from events that don’t go their way. The navy on their part seems unafraid to say what they got wrong and do something to fix it, where even in recent years the Air Force hides behind excuses.

[@johnclark6139]

fantastic video! another thing to think about is how the phantoms were used in the war. they flew the same routes at the same times with the same callsigns with the same radio bands. it really was a teacher for the US that people like Macnamara and others can’t run a war sitting halfway around the world.

[@warrenchambers4819]

Well said. When you employ stand off weapons then restrict that very capability what did they think would happen? Idiots. It's like designing a truck to haul a huge load only to employ it in a gas savins role.

[@Activated_Complex]

An important note. When we discuss USAF Phantoms lost in air-to-air combat over Vietnam, we’re talking about a mere 40 of the Air Force’s fleet of F-4s lost to North Vietnamese fighters, over the span of several years. A figure absolutely dwarfed by losses of the same model to anti-aircraft fire. And lower even than the tally of confirmed kills scored by USAF Phantoms using the AIM-7 Sparrow, alone, over the same period. As for the F-105s, favorite targets of the North Vietnamese pilots, fewer of these were lost to MiGs than the other way around. Though many more were forced to jettison their bomb loads, when enemy aircraft got past the escorting F-4s. And the B-52s? It appears that all 17 shot down during the conflict were lost to SAMs. While two MIGs were lost to tailgun fire when trying to intercept them. Combine that with the reason why BVR shots were generally off the table, namely that control of the skies was so nearly uncontested that there was an unacceptable risk of blue-on-blue incidents, with virtually any radar contact overwhelmingly likely to be friendly, and you end up with an air campaign with very little insight to offer as to what all-out war in the skies would look like between two major air arms.

[@cjcolehour2778]

even more, sad is that the us had the means to avoid that, ec-121 could have provided wide area iff coverage to avoid bule on bule engagements but that would have required those planes to be near north Vietnam and we couldn't do that.🤣

[@Activated_Complex]

@@cjcolehour2778 It probably would have taken more than the lack of an IFF response to rule out a friendly. Even in the Gulf War, more was needed than that, as IFF was and is still far from perfect. On the other hand, AWACS coverage of nearly all of Iraq really allowed the improved Sparrow, and later during the no-fly zone enforcement, the AMRAAM, to shine. By detecting aircraft taking off from a known enemy airbase, and tracking them continuously, leaving little doubt as to their nationality while the Eagles closed in to intercept.

[@themonkeyspaw7359]

"2 MIGs lost to tailgun fire" lmao thats some WW2 shit. Im just imagining some star wars music playing in the background when they shot them down. 😂

[@robertsneddon731]

@@themonkeyspaw7359 If the Good Guy has to get into gun-range to shoot at the Bad Guy then they have to accept that the Bad Guy is within gun-range of them too and will probably shoot back.

[@Activated_Complex]

@@themonkeyspaw7359 They were radar-directed quad .50 cal MGs, so arguably, more like the Korean War. Picture an F-86 with the APG-30 gun-laying radar lining up up on a straight and level target with two of its six guns jammed. It’s still gonna do some damage that won’t buff right out. At first, I wondered why the pursuing interceptors, being MiG-21s, did not open fire with their missiles, but reading up on it, it seems that doctrine developed for attacking the smaller F-105s may have been used here without modification for the massive eight-engined Stratofortress. And this would see the MiG drivers holding their fire until within close range, then launching missiles and following up with the cannon. Wouldn’t be a bad plan, except that this put them in range of the B-52’s defensive armament well before they had been taught to unload on the bombers.

[@horatiusromanus]

This has given me a new perspective on the Phantom and Vietnam. I haven’t heard Al this break down and it makes more sense than “gun solve problem”. Better training and maintenance winning fights? Who would have thought? The solution was a training issue and not a hardware issue. I think the gun on an aircraft is just a placebo to make people believe the plane can fight at this point, maybe it should stay but the conversation should be had. This and several other things are turning my opinion on the F-35. If our pilots are trained to maximize their aircraft’s potential then it will be a great thing.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

The simple fact is that for example the AIM-9B was almost useless. Against an ideal target (400kt in a strait line) they had just a 35% chance to hit if it was also cold and dark. This dropped to 9% in warm air in the day time. The range was very short too (22 miles in a shoot down situation and at best half that shoot up). By the AIM-9L range had tripled for shoot up, An ideal target shot was up to 80% and 65% in bright light and hot air. The newer sidewinders are faster and harder turning than the L.

[@veleriphon]

With the F-22 and F-35, setting the radar to TWS mode, the target won't get a warning until the missile switches to its own radar (going pitbull). The F-16, F/A-18, and F-15 also have this. The newer IR seeker missiles are pretty crazy. AIM-9x is really, really difficult to fool with countermeasures. Let alone the Israeli missile that can turn around at a merge. We can barely estimate the actual radar cross section of the 22 and 35, let alone their thermal signature. Good luck with guns in a modern air to air fight!

[@jayvaughn2842]

Well said, thank you.

[@Shaun_Jones]

It’s honestly at the point that engaging in a gunfight is suicidal unless you know that all combatants are out of missiles. Even helicopters and drones can carry stuff like AIM-9X that make it too risky to get close.

[@dieselelectricrazor377]

man the Reformists really are taking a beating today huh? Keep up the great content Dalek.

[@0EvilLemons0]

Robin Olds himself said the gun was a bad idea as it would convince young buck pilots to get into knife fights with planes that held the advantage over them and would've gotten a lot more pilots killed

[@preston6618]

Regardless of the frequency, when you need a gun, you need a gun. There’s no harm in it being part of the aircraft for the “what if” of air to air combat. I also remember watching a video or two about Vietnam and some F4 pilots, who were unable to provide unexpected close air support request to ground troops with phantoms that did not have a gun. I also watched a video on the Gulf War where a couple of F-18 Hornets, who were out of missiles and on the way back to a carrier, were requested to strafe some small Iraqi naval vessels fleeing to Iran. One of the F-18 teams only had one missile left and it would not lock onto the vessel properly. They were able to take out at least one of them with their canon strafing runs.

[@Wick9876]

The harm is 100kg for the gun and 200kg more for 1000 rounds (10 seconds). Is the gun worth not having two more AIM-120 missiles? Evidently the USAF thinks so but it's not free.

[@spartanx9293]

That g un takes up space space that could fit a more powerful radar this hurt the f4e

[@tazukisky]

@@criticalevent Warfare 50 years ago are a lot different than modern warfare

[@gbornitz]

@@criticalevent In the last 40 years the USAF scored only two gun kills (and hundreds of missiles kills), and they were both scored by an A-10 shooting down a helicopter. And there are rumours that the A-10 pilots only used the gun because it is more fun than shooting a Sidewinder.

[@gbornitz]

@@criticalevent this is a job for drones with PGMs. It is in general more accurate than firing from 1 km distance with a Gatling-gun and spending 25.000$ for a laser guided bomb is cheaper than a flight-hour of the F-35.

[@Phoenix-ej2sh]

I have to admit, I was a critic of the F-35... until Lazerpig set me straight.

[@shaider1982]

M7* did mention though that a country having f35's did make it dependent to the US due to the tech in it. also, NATO countries all using F35's makes the equipnent too uniform that a weak point may affect all buyers of the F35.

[@F-4E-58-MC]

Gotta love Lazerpig and NCD

[@hannaelia6279]

@@F-4E-58-MC LP is a propagandist who relies on straw man arguments, misrepresenting information, hiding his sources, as well as blatant cherry picking information to falsely for the purposes of selling a narrative. I would not rely on him as a credible source for anything.

[@kiwi4779]

@@F-4E-58-MCno

[@CountArtha]

A lot of the Phantom's problems in Vietnam could have been solved with AWACs and giving Phantom flights a guarantee that every bandit in their assigned sector was a target. Present-day F-15 tactics would work with the F-4 Phantom, in other words.

[@trplankowner3323]

Anyone that thinks that BVR isn't the primary air to air mode of combat for today's fighters, should go over to Ward Carroll's channel and get schooled. Fighter pilots today are trained on BCM and all of them won't back down from a dogfight (they wouldn't be fighter pilots otherwise), but they are trained to fire their BVR missiles and go home. That is doctrine in both USAF, USN and USMC.

[@lucasfeliphe7028]

With the Block 4 upgrade, the F-35 will be able to carry 6 missiles internally. 4-6 missiles is common for the vast majority of 4th generation fighters, but the difference is that the F-35 doesn't have to worry about EFT, external jamming pods, FLIR, and the parasitic aerodynamic drag that brings; it has all of that internally. Additionally, on the question of target identification/BVR, people forget how much Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) means have evolved in fighter aircraft. Since Vietnam, they have invested in developing Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) means to better characterize the target at considerable distance, for example, the F-22's initial APG-77 radar in UHR mode could create images with 31 cm resolution over 161 km. With the sensor capabilities and target characterization parameters of the F-35 (it has 650 parameters based on sensor fusion in that regard compared to the F-22 216 parameters), I don't think there would be much of a weathering in that field.

[@everythingman987]

Finally a sensible comment! Radar resolution, automation and processing power has increased so exponentially that the APG-77, APG-81, and their derivative technology radars don't even need a CIT to identify an aircraft. Why use IFF when you can see the entire aircraft down to individual screws and skin panel seams? The F-35 takes this a step further than the Raptor because of it's EOTS. It has more situational awareness on more of the EM spectrum. It apparently uses heat signatures in addition to radar. Also a shout out to US Intelligence, who built the databases the F-35 and F-22 use.

[@blairmiller3863]

Since you brought up 'Top Gun' it needs to be said that they were the ones that pushed the F-4 to its actual limits. While the AF flew the plane within the limits dictated by MD, the Navy went way beyond them. Sure, they probably overstressed the airframes, which led to the early retirement of some birds, but better to kill the bad guy and live to fight another day.

[@johnshepherd8687]

They pushed the limits of the aircraft because the F8s they flew against were beating them like drum.

[@robertsneddon731]

Carrier catapult launches and tailhook landings pull rivets loose on airframes. A carrier-based aircraft has a much shorter airframe lifespan (outside of combat) than one operating from a runway. It's one reason for the development and introduction of EMALS for the Ford-class carriers since they provide more controlled acceleration of the plane being launched compared to the previous steam-powered launch systems. The F-35C does not suffer from this problem of course being STOV/RL.

[@robertsneddon731]

My mistake, for "F-35C" above read "F-35B".

[@christianparauan]

Dude, you need to post more often! Much love.

[@No_Deal-fergetaboutit]

Another interesting aspect of BVR in Vietnam was that, for a time, we were able to make use of VPAF transponder (IFF) signals for identification. Some USAF F-4D's were equipped with the APX-80 "Combat Tree", allowing for positive identification for BVR shots. These F-4D's where paired with other Phantoms, with the D's identifying targets and the others firing on them. Another advantage was that the system was passive. The VPAF transponder allowed for direction and range determination. Thus, the enemy only became aware of F-4's in the area when one turned on his radar to actually fire a missile. Whereas, active scanning would have told the enemy a Phantom was out there much earlier. Combat Tree was kept very hush-hush. So, the enemy took some time to figure out how we were suddenly scoring so many BVR kills. After which, VPAF pilots took to only turning on their IFF when absolutely necessary. This left them vulnerable to attack from their own SAM sites, as prevention of this was the intent of their IFF in the first place. Interestingly, even decades later, exactly how Combat Tree worked is still secret.

[@mikeck4609]

Glad to see people starting to push back on the myths of BVR/F-4/Missle mythology in Vietnam. I get very annoyed every time I hear someone say “The US Navy/Air Force thought dogfighting was dead b/c missiles would be used to shoot down fighters at long range. Not true. As almost everyone is aware, the early missiles were designed to take our slow non-maneuvering bombers. If the military thought they would need to take out fighters, why design missles to only take our bombers? No, it was believed that the dogfight was dead in the late 50’s/(very) early 60’s b/c the military doctrine was based on total nuclear war. War would consist of strategic bombers dropping strategic nuclear warheads while small high speed fighter-sized bombers delivered small tactical nuclear warheads. The former had far too great of a range to be escorted. The latter were primarily designed to take on nuclear warhead -stored internally - (hence the internal bays on the F-105 and F-111), ingress at very low altitude and high speed, drop and egress even faster. There would be no time to intercept it. So all you need is bombers/strike aircraft and interceptors to kill the other guy’s bombers. There was simply no reason to think that you would need to take out an enemy fighter aircraft. Why would you need to? It wasn’t until 1962, and Kennedy’s command to the U.S. military to adopt a “flexible response” that the idea of having to fight a conventional war took hold. But Vietnam arrived. It wasn’t just the U.S. either. Soviet top line fighters like the MiG-19, Mig-21 and - eventually- the Mig-23 were ALL interceptors and many early variants of the Mig-21 also did not have a gun. You don’t need one to shoot bombers. Now, if instead you are going to need to conduct large numbers of strikes on tactical targets with conventional bombs, you need multiple aircraft in each strike…many unable to ingress at low altitude the whole way due to fuel use caused by the drag of external bombs. Add to that the CAS requirement of conventional war, and you get the need to establish air superiority with fighters designed to kill the other guys interceptors People like Pierre Sprey seem to think technology hasn’t advanced in the last 50’years; so if it didn’t work in 1967, it won’t work in 2024. Well, BVR missiles do work quite well and even inside visual range, high off- boresite missles combined with helmet mounted cuing eliminate the need to fly around trying to get a firing position on the enemy’s 6 0’clock. Your firing position is the enemy anywhere in the front 180 degree hemisphere of your aircraft. THAT’s why dogfighting is dead

[@COUNTERCOM]

2:31 I believe that's Robin olds. An Absolute Giga Chad among Chads.

[@johnclark6139]

i think olds is the exception to this video. an absolute unit😂

[@jayvaughn2842]

And he married a movie star. Da man.

[@MberEnder]

Why does this guy have only 400 subscribers? This was a great video!

[@No_Deal-fergetaboutit]

Excellent coverage. You skipped one point, that BVR firings were also rare in Vietnam due to the rules requiring visual identification. This was done to prevent firing on friendlies. One BVR shoot-down my farther speaks of was "we knew none of our aircraft were in that area at time" so a Sparrow BVR kill was made. Another notable BVR kill, albeit from a ship, occurred when a RIM-8 Talos was used to down a MIG, 48 miles inland. In that instance, again, it was known that no friendlies were in that airspace at the time. You mentioned the F-101 Voodoo originally being designed with guns (6x20mm as the XF-88). The F-89A/B/C also were equipped with 6x20mm cannon. The D moved to all-rockets (104). The H received Falcons (radar and IR) which were, interestingly, carried inside the forward section of giant wingtip pods (3 each). This occurred just ahead of the F-102 flying with Falcons. Thus, the first operational guided missile aircraft in the world was the F-89H. The J received AIR-2 Genies under-wing, and the Falcons also moved under-wing. As dad puts it "In the J your armament was all under the wings." Rockets could still be carried in the pods but dad says "We never did. No reason to." Only the all-fuel pods were ever used on the J, in practice. Also of interest, all of the J models were actually rebuilt D's, not new aircraft. The missiles themselves are different between Vietnam and now. Sparrow and Sidewinder have come a long way. Also, though there were something like four Falcon kills in Vietnam, it was difficult to use against anything that could maneuver. As my father describes it, it had a longer firing procedure to go through, finalized by "puncturing the squib." The control surfaces of the Falcon were pneumatic and the squib contained pre-pressurized fluid to power them. Once punctured you only had a some seconds of pressure, after which the Falcon would just fly straight. So, timing of prep and firing was critical, making it tough to use in a maneuvering fight. Additionally, being initially designed for use against lumbering bombers, the squib provided enough reserve to make flight corrections against such. However, it would quickly be expended making the more aggressive corrections needed against a maneuvering fighter. Dad flew 20 years in the USAF as RO in the F-89D/J/H, then F-101B, nav in the RF-4C ("100 Missions N Vietnam" patch), and retired as #2 rated WSO in the F-111F fleet (he flew the A model prior at Takhli RTAFB). It was he who sent me this video. So, you are "Colonel approved!" Thanks for making my dad's day!

[@pogo1140]

MiG-35??

[@No_Deal-fergetaboutit]

@@pogo1140 ...a Mig "35 miles inland." I meant, a Mig which was 35 miles inland. I looked at it again and realized I was thinking of the USS Chicago, which fired nine Talos missiles during its '71/72 tour. The 1972 shot was memorable due to the range, which was actually 48 miles. I've added a comma to my original statement to make it easier to read, and corrected the range.

[@johnshepherd8687]

There were two problems that limited BVR combat in Vietnam. The aforementioned unreliability of early AIM-7 missiles and the lack of adequate IFF. There was great concern that with most aircraft in the air being friendly it was too risky to shoot at targets without visual ID. In addition the early AIM-9 seeket field of view was so limited that MiG 17s could out turn the missile at low speeds. By the second phase of the airwar starting in 1972 the AIM-7 was better but still unreliable but the improved AIM-9 had a wider field of view and turn rate so escape by maneuver was much harder and AIM-9 hit rates were much higher. To reinforce your point about the gun, the F8 Crusader was called last of the gunfighters but only had 3 gun kills out of 19 victories. All the rest were AIM-9 kills. In the first phase of the airwar, Crusaders had more kills with fewer loses than the Phantom despite flying far fewer sorties. F8 was the best fighter employed by the US during the Vietnam War not just because it had better characteristics but because the aircrew trained for traditional air-to-air combat. There was no aggressor squadron when the Fighter Weapons School was established. The Phantom crews just flew against F8s flown by experienced pilots. The F8 dominated the Phantom but as result the Phantom crews learned to get the most out of their aircraft. The result was the improved performance in 1972.

[@oracletx]

I talked to a USAF F-4 pilot that flew in Vietnam, who told me about when he should not have used his gun. He and his group of Phantoms were sent out to sink a fishing boat that had been fitted to listen to US radio chatter. They flew out, and strafed it multiple times with their guns until it started to sink. He said they used up most of their 20mm ammunition. When he got back to base, his commanding officer was furious with him for not using the AIM-7 Sparrow. The pilot was confused at why he should use an air-to-air missile on a boat. Evidently between the radar homing and continuous rod warhead, it was very effective against small unarmored boats. The commander showed him pictures where one Sparrow missile was fired at a boat, and in his words, "It looked like a giant had taken a bite out of it."

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

I've heard of Sidewinders used against ground targets due to the heat source being tracked, but never of a Sparrow tracking a boat.

[@Lobos222]

Gun option needed because of missile issues: 1960 - Yes. 1991 - Kinda (ref Operation Desert storm, Operation Desert Fox and Operation Iraqi freedom). 2020 - Nah. I would argue that if you could fire all your missiles at a target. The target, within reason, being able to dodge or there being missile issues that mad them not hit. As long as such was theoretically, again within reason, able to happen. That would imply one should have the gun option.

[@dogsbd]

The worst part about the F-4 not having a gun is that everyone points to that mistake today and draw the wrong conclusion. A gun is simply not really a first priority in a fighter aircraft in 2022. The added weight (200+ lb for the gun alone, plus 5-600 lb of ammo) would be better used on extra fuel.

[@williamnixon3994]

If you're using your gun nowadays, either you fucked up or you got outplayed, and in both scenarios you really ought to be leaving instead of dogfighting, if possible. If not, then the gun at least gives -something- to defend yourself with, though it'd still be preferable to cut and run

[@FlyAndWire]

Finally, a good video on the topic! I had numerous conversations about this topic through the years, going forward I'll point people here, rather than wasting time explaining why the guns were not the game changer they thought it was. Subscribed.

[@jondrew55]

I worked with 2 former Vietnam F4 technicians. My fondest memory was them in a loud argument about working on the gun which they affectionately and loudly referred to as the “Donkey Dick”

[@JAEUFM]

My aerodynamics professor used to say, 'Back in the day, MD solved all aerodynamic problems with bigger engines'. When it comes to the Phantom, it was pushed into a type of fight it really was not designed for. Putting the cannon on it, did not fix it, but, it did help it.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

There were actual aerodynamics upgrades to the F-4, the cannon actually negatively affected the handling by adding that much weight to the nose.

[@dmore454]

The F-4s' problems in Vietnam had little to do with the plane itself, and instead it was everything else: -pilots in the military at that time were frequently deployed with little to no aerial combat training, and a lot of the training they did receive was either poor or outdated. A series of air-to-air wargames/tests the air force ran shortly before air operations were conducted over North Vietnam showed a lot of their fighter pilots were under/poorly trained in aerial combat, and the units that performed the best were the few that had conducted a lot of air-to-air training/war games in their current aircraft (iirc ot was the F-104 squadrons that frequently came out on top and it's generally believed that had a lot to do with those crews having the most air-to-air training/experience as well as those crews having more flight hours on average in their F-104s than the other squadrons had with their aircraft, thus they knew the strengths and weaknesses of their aircraft intimately) -the lack of training meant the pilots didn't really know the strengths and weaknesses of the F-4 in various air-to-air engagements, nor really the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy aircraft they were to encounter. This meant they didn't know what scenarios to avoid with enemy aircraft, so when bandits were spotted, they frequently put themselves into disadvantagous positions with their aircraft. People tend to knock the Phantom for its overall lack of low speed maneuverability in addition to the lack of a gun, but the strengths of the aircraft (climb, acceleration, thrust/general speed, sensor range, altitude, etc) meant anyone properly trained in its use could decline any engagement that didn't play to it's strengths, and easily escape ones it accidentally found itself in in combination with the right tactics (something the Top Gun graduates would mercilessly exploit) -the pilots also weren't well versed in how it's missile actually operated/meant to be deployed; in a lot of those early engagements, when pilots did find themselves in a position to launch a sidewinder or sparrow, they often launched them outside of optimal parameters (ie not waiting for tone, launching them when the target was too close/far (in the case of the sidewinder), etc) with no chance of the missile actually hitting its target -early missiles also sucked; the Rolling Thunder era Sparrows were almost impossible to score a kill with inside visual range, the sidewinder was only slightly more useful, and the Falcon (on the D model) was basically useless. -and then you had the ground crews' piss poor treatment of the missiles, ie not conducting proper ir regular maintenance, storage, and recalibration of the missiles. So even if you could find yourself in position for a kill despite your lack of air-to-air training, and you launched within the proper parameters for the missile to home to the target, and it wasn't a dud from the factory... it could still fall off the missile rail without arming because the missile had gone up on 4 previous flights without being fired and the ground crews didn't do any maintenance/recalibration after any of those flights and it got stored improperly. -the air force also had a different doctrine than the Navy did; where the Navy had RIOs who were dedicated radar/electronics/avionics officers while the front seat had the actual pilot (allowing for each to specialize in their respective tasks), the air force required both seats to have pilots certified to fly the aircraft and you didn't really have dedicated front-rear tandems to the degree the Navy had, with one pilot who knew the plane's flight characteristics intimately and a rear electronics officer who knew all of the electronics/radar/avionics systems intimately; instead, the front "main" pilot was always the one in the tandem who had the most seniority (which would lead to cases where the older pilot in the front had less experience flying the Phantom the he younger pilot in the rear seat), which meant sometimes your job on a mission was flying the Phantom from the front seat, and other times you were watching the scope in the rear seat, depending on the seniority of who you were paired with (leading to less specialization with front and rear seat roles). -plus, it's main weapon was *supposed* to be the Sparrow, a missile designed expressly for BVR combat, military doctrine at the time meant the F-4 couldn't fire at targets that were BVR, and within visual range the missile usually didn't have enough time to arm, which made it virtually useless. But then things changed after Rolling Thunder and a series of investigations into why the F-4 and the Navy and Air Force as a whole had underperformed to expectations over Borth Vietnam. Training programs like Top Gun and Red Flag were created, so that pilots would better understand their aircrafts strengths and weaknesses, their opponents' strengths and weaknesses, tactics the enemy usually employed, tactics designed to take advantage of the F-4s strengths, as well as how and when to fire their missiles (and their graduates were sent back to their squadrons to share what they'd learned). They designed new generations of the sidewinder and sparrow that could stay better locked and home to their targets more effectively (as well as improving the quality control of production so fewer duds were produced). Ground crews were better trained on how to handle the missiles and to conduct proper, frequent maintenance/recalibration to further cut down on the duds. The Air Force altered its doctrine, adopting a similar dedicated radar officer role to the Navy's RIO in the WSO, as well as dropping the "targets must be visually identified first" rule with the adoption of the Combat Tree IFF tracking system (which was followed by a spike in Sparrow kills). Would having had a gun from Day 1 have helped? Sure, but the kinds of close ranges it required meant in order to score a gun kill you were likely putting the Phantom in a position where it had a major disadvantage in the dogfight against a Mig-17/21, so you were already making a major mistake trying to get a gun kill (hence why Major Olds of Operation Bolo fame steadfastly refused allowing his unit's F-4s be armed with the gunpods for MigCAP flights, he didn't want his pilots getting into the kinds of dogfights the Phantom couldn't win in order to chase gun kills). And as the video pointed out, after the implementation of Top Gun and the newer missile generations and better quality control/maintenance/handling procedures, they saw better improved kill ratios than the air force despite Navy F-4s never adding a gun during the war. But the Reformers will continue to talk about the plane's lack of a gun and it's multi-role capability over being specialized as a low-tech dogfighter being the reasons why this plane was supposedly terrible when it actually was likely the best US combat aircraft of the war (with the F-111, another favorite punching bag of reformers who don't know what they're talking about being a close second) Edit: I had forgotten the air force saw a drop in kill ratios (probably because I think Red Flag, aka the air forces Wal-Mart brand answer to Top Gun came after the war for the most part); I think some of that drop could be partially blamed on some of the changes in the USAF's air doctrine post-Rolling Thunder, where they lost a fair number of F-4s over South Vietnam and Laos due to being ambushed by Migs and SAMs that came from the North's improved overall air defense forces post-Rolling Thunder basically always having the upper hand in air engagements they started with F-4s flying close air support and interdiction missions over South Vietnam and the Ho Chi Minh trail, as well as, iirc, the Air Forces "sectors" of North Vietnam during Rolling Thunder and Linebackers 1/2 having better and heavier air defenses than the Navy's sectors. But IIRC, if you just look at Operations Linebacker 1/2, the Air Force's air-to-air kill ratios were noticeably better than they had been during Rolling Thunder (although the Navy definitely still outperformed them). I could be wrong, tho, I'm going mostly off memory of things I read years ago and I still have a few chapters to read of the current Vietnam air war book I'm reading, "Going Downtown."

[@bowdonwheeler6359]

I agree with the gentleman who said that the ROEs during the Vietnam War were the biggest reason for the the need for a gun since in the F4 you were flying an aircraft designed for BVR but not be allowed to use it as designed. As for the F 35 and in general I prefer the boy scout approach better to have the gun and not need it than to need it and not have it. After all how much could a gun installation weigh and if I remember correctly gun pods were tried in Vietnam and found to be much less accurate than internal guns they were designed for strafing after all.

[@jameshastey3058]

The biggest problem with the F-4 Phantom not having a gun was due to the Rules of Engagement in Vietnam. Those RoE required American pilots to VISUALLY identify an aircraft as hostile BEFORE they could fire on it. That meant getting in close where the missiles would have a hard time either tracking or fusing (ie the arming of the explosive warhead). In the close-in dogfights that often ensued, the radar guided Sparrow often was unusable either due to the enemy aircraft being too close (inside minimum range) or due to the Phantom's radar not being able to detect the enemy aircraft due to ground clutter. The Phantom's radar was an analog tube-style unit that required a couple seconds after initial lock for the radar to "settle" enough to provide a stable targeting solution to program the Sparrow with - and then the Sparrow took another 2 seconds for the Phantom's radar to program the targeting data to the missile. This was a total of roughly 4 seconds from when the Phantom first locked up the MiG until the pilot could press button to launch the missile. The Sparrow then took another 1.5-2 seconds to actually drop from the rail/belly enough for the rocket motor to fire and send the missile off. That means that the Phantom crew had to keep the MiG in a very narrow area for 6 seconds after lock before the missile ever left the jet, and had to maintain that lock until the missile hit the enemy jet. This often meant keeping the MiG in the gunsight until the missile hit. The Vietnam era versions of the Sidewinder heat seeking missile could only lock onto the back (jet exhaust side) of an enemy aircraft, and would not guide if the launch aircraft was pulling in excess of 2G's when the missile was launched. Even if launched at only 1G (straight and level flight) from directly behind an enemy jet, the Sidewinder would often track towards the Sun or other false heat return and could be avoided by hard maneuvering and the pilot throttling down to reduce heat signature. This is why so many Phantom pilots - from the USAF, USN, and USMC all say that they would have done better and had fewer losses to enemy aircraft if the Phantom had been equipped with an internal cannon from the beginning.

[@cstgraphpads2091]

RoE has been the cause of far more problems in modern war than the perceived failings of equipment.

[@rexxmen]

This is mainly an Air Force experience. The Navy used far better Aim9s that wouldn't have an issue tracking targets, but the Air Force used barely upgraded versions of the Aim9s

[@jameshastey3058]

@@criticalevent Not since Desert Storm. In Desert Storm, there were a number of occasions when AWACS gave Coalition fighters the go-ahead to shoot BVR by calling the approaching aircraft as a "Bandit", the same happened a few times in the Balkans.

[@pogo1140]

@@jameshastey3058 We shot down 2 US Army helicopters over Iraq afterwards btw.

[@TotalRookie_LV]

From an interview with Ukrainian MiG-29 pilot, in three months of war and multiple kills scored, he only once had a visual contact, and even that was just a split second sight of a silhouette of Russian plane, not a close up dogfight engagement. And that's an 1980s Soviet design, Western planes have much more sophisticated electronics, making BVR even more important. One cautious note - many of his targets must have been Su-24 bombers, maybe Su-35 too and Su-25 attack planes, not other fighters, thus this experience can not been transferred 1 to 1 for all possible scenarios, dogfights are still possible, just *very* unlikely.

[@fangsout305]

I’m of the mind that having a gun is good for Air to ground as it can be used for lighter targets or exposed infantry . The F-4E, with its change from Air superiority fighter to strike aircraft would benefit from a Vulcan. Good video , love the Louisville Slugger and it’s history

[@donscheid97]

You succeeded in altering my opinion. I knew all of those things, but had not put it all together. Current planes are built with a three tier of weapons; long range, close range and knife range, giving the pilot what he needs when he needs it. Now it is up to training and maintaining.

[@KingSulley]

Really miss your content, any chance we'll see another video any time soon?

[@ga9633]

The F-4 was designed during a time of BVR engagement. The Gatling gun may not have had the air to air success as intended, but it did mean that an extra weapon system was aboard. Don't forget the air to ground use of this cannon. Also, the F-4E was now equipped with a smaller, solid state radar called the APQ-120 that could see out to 200 miles, and lock on out to 50 miles. The addition of the Gatling was a definite enhancement, not a detriment, and I never heard a single pilot complain about having a gun aboard.

[@cameronc1509]

Not only did the air to air missiles have a bad hit probability(for whatever reason), but the ROE banned BVR engagements. Pilots had to visually PID the enemy and then the enemy had to show hostile intent before they could be engaged. F

[@davidfuller581]

I think part of the issue is that the early missiles were designed for combat over Europe, not southeast Asia. It's no surprise that missiles designed for a generally temperate climate didn't do so hot in super high humidity and temperature.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

My counter point to the “iT nEeDs A cAnNoN” crowd, is the proceeding generation F-14’s in the Iran-Iraq War, where Iranian Tomcat pilots were schwacking Iraqi MiG’s and Mirage’s with AIM-54 Phoenix at such extreme range that the Iraqi’s had no idea that they were under attack and initially suspected sabotage.

[@USSMaineBB-95]

I'm actually kinda glad I watched this as I needed to better understand the development and context behind the F-4 Phantom

[@CharliMorganMusic]

I think people forget that the missiles used during Vietnam are not the missiles used right now.

[@shira_yone]

KZbin recommended this vid, and I like it. I'm just a layman but people claiming missiles are somehow still as unreliable as it were 4-5 _decades_ ago are just ridiculous. Even if I were to believe that the Phantom II benefitted from having a gun, there's little to no reason to doubt that missiles are much *much* better now for the F-35s. If there's somehow a need for a gun in the mission (unlikely), they can carry gunpods, but by default they are saving weight from not having to always carry a gun (the B and C variants are already inherently heavier than the A, every little weight shaved counts).

[@DavidSmith-jj5pr]

now add "the folly of comparing countermeasures from 50 to 60 years ago to today"

[@quistan2]

It's not that bvr missles are bad, its just that there are ways to defeat them. Even modern ones. When two knights have armor(stealth) thats so good that neither one can damage eachother, they either go home, or pull out stihlettos(guns) and aim for the eye slots.

[@lividwafers270]

glad you're back also, when would you like to talk about hypersonic missiles?

[@COUNTERCOM]

Dalek Uploaded? Based: Check. Redpilled: Check.

[@MikeBracewell]

Agreed, it wasn't "just the gun" but this is, also, a very shallow assessment. Later versions of the F4 - such as the E, G, J etc - had to incorporate various aerodynamic refinements (such as slats), lighted avionics & uprated engines to improve their manoeuvrability so they became competitive in close-combat. The heavier losses encountered by the 'E models had mostly to do with poor deployment by the USAF, such as providing close-cover for F-105s in medium-low level engagements. It is, also, pointless to draw conclusions from the F4's combat performance to predict F35's as they are very different beasts, operated in very different era's. It is entirely possible the BVR weaponry will be just as ineffective in a high-ECM environment, particularly against AESA equipped targets with their multi-frequency jamming abilities. The argument that "interceptors don't carry guns" is, also, misleading. Because of the Vietnam experience, most interceptors since the 70s were designed with an internal gun (Mig 31, JA 37 etc) while others were retro-fitted with permanent gun-pods (F-106) or rebuilt to carry gun-pods (Su 15 being a prime example. Even early versions of the F4 could carry them).

[@lihisluikku]

It's such a false narrative that the F-4 had an underwhelming combat performance "because it lacked a gun" or "bvr combat is unreliable". People who say this shit are either very misinformed or spread lies for political motives (reformists). The F-4's combat performance was astounding when it was allowed to BVR. But for some reason, I think there might have been like a FF incident or just political tension, it became forbidden to shoot first. The pilots now had to fly right next to the target, intercept it, ask it nicely to leave, and only engage if fired upon. In some battles, they just had to visually check it was a hostile MiG and then shoot. And the plane is designed for BVR, not for dogfighting. And the pilots were trained to just get a radar lock on a suspected hostile, then shoot a missile at it. They were out of their element when confronted with a more maneuverable plane and a pilot who had more training in dogfighting. But for the F-35, modern AWACS planes provide the fleet with long range identification capability of targets. Datalinks allow different aircraft to communicate with each other. Position of friendlies is easier to keep track of. Targets can be spotted hundreds of kilometers away from the F-35s, far before the F-35 is seen. The target can be identified and the permission to engage can be given far before the potential hostile ever gets to even dream about dog fighting the F-35. Also, even attempting to use Vietnam era missiles to justify why we shouldn't rely on missiles in 2022, is like saying "Actually in some battles during the 1800's, swords were outperforming these unreliable and impractical gunpowder weapons. We should not get rid of the sword as the backbone of our armies". It's the same shit over and over again.

[@pogo1140]

So what happens when the F-35 is facing another aircraft with equal or near equal stealth capabilities flown by a pilot who is doing everything they can to maximize that capability by flying below 200 ft where even the AWACs can't see clearly due to LOS issues, nevermind the ground clutter or filters designed to exclude fast moving cars from the radar track?

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@pogo1140 Not sure which fast cars do 400-500 knots.

[@pogo1140]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD 150knots and below, fly your plane at the right angle and you'll fall into that envelope

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@pogo1140 That's straight up radar notching. Making the relative velocity of an aircraft and incoming ground too close to gate. Forget about the cars, "static" ground is the problem there.

[@Mediiiicc]

I look forward to the idiot comments you will get on this video and your follow up video pointing them out. I've seen a lot of the points you made in this video before thanks to Dragon029 Busting myths 4 but you did provide some other points that he didn't cover. Nice vid.

[@duartesimoes508]

Colonel Robin Olds USAF strictly forbade his pilots to enter a dogfight against Mig 17s with the SUU 20mm gun pod attached. This is because he knew that an F-4 had next to no chance of winning a dogfight against the nimble Mig-17. Besides, I believe the SUU pod created a lot of drag and excessive load factor, and I also heard that it was prone to jamming at high G loads. It was probably a different case with the awesome F-4E.

[@dsdy1205]

Funny how it seems most of the discourse around the Ukrainian airconflict, a 'real war where the gloves come off', is toward a BVR-oriented theater, including SAMs.

[@Rosatodi2006]

I’m only three years late, but here it goes. The Navy never did put an internal cannon on the F-4. All the Navy variants lacked a cannon until the day the F-4 went out of service. The USAF did create a training program like Top Gun.

[@logicbomb5511]

The issue with the phantoms Kill ratio wasn't that they used just missiles but that the air force use just aim-4 falcon IR missiles which were useless from the start till the USN fixed them and turned them into prototypes for the Maverick ATGM. The US navy developed Aim-9 was a wonder weapon that was much more suited to the climb and dive energy tactics Air forces always want to try and use and to which the f4 is suited.

[@blaineadams7484]

Another issue they had was an ROE that required visual identification. Hard to hit bvr if you have to look em in the eye first.

[@l8knight845]

The F-35 should never be within 25 miles of an enemy aircraft. That's what the fleet of 4th gen fighters are for.

[@skinnyboi810]

This is solid. And also like the f4 the f35 isn’t meant for close in dogfighting either. I mean it probably could just not well. So it wouldn’t need a gun I trust the designers and military strategists over a bunch of KZbin commenters. I enjoyed your video

[@jayvaughn2842]

So very well said.

[@pyronuke4768]

The thing I hate most about this criticism is... *this isn't the 1960's anymore!!!* Modern missiles are exponentially more reliable now than they were six literal decades ago! The air battles of today look nothing like the ones over Vietnam or Korea; it's closer to a game of Hide-And-Seek than it is to a game of Tag.

[@kieferkarpfen6897]

What we are not fighting like in 60s? But gun goes bumm bunm.

[@MK742cz]

guns have their role in ground support. Even if 750 rounds translate to like 3 seconds of fire. But even heat seeking AtA missiles like aim9x are almost unavoidable if shot within 2 kilometers. Even if enemy would spend all missiles, gun kill on super maneuverable supersonic plane is unlikely

[@keithbradley4224]

The F4 was used heavily in ground support, hence the Vulcan pod and later integrated Vulcan.

[@BiscuitDelivery]

Never underestimate the power of belief. Having a cannon onboard gives the pilot the confidence to know that if all else fails, he still has hundreds of rounds of ordinance at his disposal. Even if it never comes into use, the cannon will improve the pilot's confidence in their ability.

[@777Outrigger]

"According to Red Baron data, the single most significant factor in the loss of aircraft [to Migs] was the element of surprise, with 81 per-cent of all U.S. losses occurring when the crew was either completely unaware they were under attack, or found out too late to effectively defend." Dog fight maneuvers are important, but Situational Awareness is much much more important. ".... the Air Force finally got its technical answer to the warning problem, a control center called “Teaball.” Teaball was, in essence, an all-source fusion center that issued MiG warnings in real-time to U.S. air-crew over a complicated set of radio nets. Because of the complexity and unreliability of the communications involved, Teaball did not always work. But when it did, the results were excellent: The Teaball facility came into operation in early August when we had a loss-ratio of .47-to-one - we were losing almost twice as many as the MiGs to us. Then, with the first week’s operation of Teaball, we jumped to a four-to-one ratio for the month of August, and four-to-one in September....This proved one thing - if you can show the American fighter pilot where [the enemy] is in sufficient time, he’ll shoot him down. Overall, and especially following the commencement of Teaball, American pilots enjoyed definite air superiority over North Vietnam." The USAF didn't start impressive kill rates over the VPAF until Operation Teaball. Teaball vastly increased the situational awareness of USAF pilots. The USAF didn't have Top Gun, and Red Flag hadn't started yet. It wasn't Tom Cruz and Top Gun, it was the Situational Awareness of Tea Ball that put the USAF way back on top..

[@chandrachurniyogi8394]

in a combat situation the only woe F-4 Phantom II pilots had was the lack of a gun & the heavy bulk of the airframe . . .

[@camaro5081]

The Air Force was putting gun pods on their F-4C/D models for strafing runs and air to air combat. The problem is that the pod was installed on the centerline station where normally a 600 gallon external fuel tank would go. When Air Force ordered the E model they wanted the gun in the nose so they could put the centerline tank back on for long range missions. I know the F-4 had wing tanks too but they took up weapons pylons positions.

[@curtiswoodard6195]

One caveat I’d add to the statistics those modern kills with missiles were made with BVR capable missiles. That doesn’t mean they were made at BVR ranges because of ROE requiring visual ID. So while tactics were certainly the primary issue for the F4 in nam doesn’t mean that the F35 will get to make kills from 40 miles away under the blanket of stealth if it has to close to visual ID. Also part of the air force lack of increase in Mig kills is their mission profiles the navy wasn’t escorting massed B52 strike packages. Col. Olds did pretty well when the brass let him go out and use tactics to draw migs into a favorable engagement as opposed to waiting to get jumped.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The F-4 addressed this with an electro-optical system, very few made it to Thailand at the end of the war. The F-14 had the TISEO. The F-35 has the DAS/EOTS. You can do visual ID from "beyond visual range", as least human visual range.

[@sgt_s4und3r54]

At the end of the day having as many tools in your toolbox is important. A lot of the inaccuracies came from the Fighter Mafia. The reality is that adding the gun is NECESSARY. Many of the current conflicts have yet to prove BVR is end all be all with proper training and countermeasures they can be spoofed and its in the moment the gun becomes necessary and it was a lot of those situations that the pilots found themselves in. Training is always a key factor but many of the USAF pilots weren't just new, many were veterans of Korea and WW2. They also believed it needed a gun because when the missiles failed that all they could do was run and they couldn't protect their wingmen. Proper maintenance wasn't the pilots fault either. They got stuck with what they had in that state. Most of the modern kills you are looking at today come from underdeveloped and underfunded regimes. Argentina suffered a similar issue when going against the British. When you toy with your enemy and bring them to your zone at your benefit(suggest looking at operation BOLO) you devastate the enemy at will with malfunctioning equipment because you're using the aircraft and it's equipment to it's optimal performance. When you look at the first Gulf War every kill was BVR but also the Iraqi's weren't well trained and most of the time didn't know what they were up against or how to defeat it. The mastermind behind BOLO didn't have the F4E and proves your point eloquently but in the end he still also preferred having the gun as a backup because you never knew when things could go sideways.

[@josephahner3031]

Why don't you watch the video all the way through and then talk. If you did, do it again. There's a bit near the end that makes your entire waffle irrelevant.

[@jayvaughn2842]

Slammers. No one is mentioning fox-3. If a slammer gets a lock it's going home. Right up the snot locker. AIM-120 and fire control radar improvements since '91 have been significant. If a real shootin' match occurs LO and BVR will rule the day, probably 95%+ of kills. Sure, some leaker is gonna get a fox-2 or guns guns up the tail-pipe but that will be a rarity in a theater scale peer or near peer war. All this yakin' about small conflicts and WVR kills...like some UN driven no-fly-zone viz ID ROE will cause--yes, guns and fox-2 will be needed. But no modern air power is coming to the table planning to gain/maintain air superiority without active missiles and LO capability and it's all gonna be BVR and lots of birds gonna fall out of the sky like rocks, flaming rocks.

[@hedgehog3180]

I feel like in modern air combat guns serve a similar role to guns on warships, they aren't really a serious weapon and are most useful for warning shots or when taking down low priority targets that don't warent a missile.

[@Revan_258]

I feel like a better comparison for an argument against BVR would be the early Cold War jets where US fighters were getting out preformed in dogfights my MIGs as they relied on missiles and rockets. But combat and missions have changed so much that guns are almost never ever used in dogfights.

[@vernmeyerotto255]

I think you overlook the fact that during the Vietnam Era, it was impossible to verify friend/foe identity at beyond visual ranges. Even during the 1980s Gulf War, there were incidents that would have ended in fratricide if some unknown targets were fired upon, mostly due to a lack of coordination between Gulf-based fighters and those based in Turkey. By the time visual identification has been made, quite often, fighters are inside the minimum effective range of AIM9 missles, leaving the only effective weapon option to be a gun. Current F35 offensive avionics suites are so different than what was fielded even 30 years ago, misidentification of unknown BVR aerial targets should be a thing of the past.

[@dalek14mc]

My points about the F-4 phantom is about the reliability of the missiles. Not BVR.

[@vernmeyerotto255]

@@dalek14mc Agreed, the Munitions Maintenance Squadrons were bouncing the missles around like they were iron bombs. It was no wonder so many failed to guide after launch. Just the same, look at a left side photo of a late production build F4E, '72 or later. That round "pipe" jutting out from the leading edge inboard of the slats is an electro-optical camera that could be slaved to the radar antenna azimuth and elevation look angles - shooting missles in a congested battlespace just isn't happening unless you have a visual ID in the Vietnam era.

[@vernmeyerotto255]

@Jack SujovolskyToday, an integrated strike package that includes AWACS, Joint Rivit and other high value assets in the battlespace deconflict the friendly's from the threats so that long range missle shots don't pose the problems that existed in the past. Even as late as Gulf War I, an integrated battlespace did not exist above Iraq in all cases.

[@SkullKing11841]

Good video. My understanding was that part of the problem for the US air force initially was that they where using AIM-4 Falcon missiles in Vietnam and not AIM-9s, the AIM-4 Falcon as I understand it was a very poor missile. the AIM-9 on the other hand, the missile the US Navy used, was much better.

[@therealmp40]

I mean, the argument can be made for the F-4, since at the time if you were fighting a target that got too close or were aware of you, it could be very tricky to shoot them down just with missiles, since the F-4's radar limited the performance of the sparrow and AIM-9s of the time were rear aspect only and not very agile. Today's missiles are really capable even within traditional dogfighting distance, being able to launch missiles off-boresight with helmet mounted sights and the capabilities of something like an AIM-9M or X mean that it is possible to shoot down someone up close without a gun. But even then you can still end up in a situation where you can't use missiles, and they can always be countered by flares or chaff, a gun can't. Even if you aren't likely to need it, it will always be better to have a gun than not have one.

[@josephahner3031]

Best of luck confusing an AIM-9X or AASRAM with flares and ditto with AMRAAM or Meteor with chaff. If you're out of missiles that's why you have a wingman. If you can't pop an enemy at BVR range with AMRAAMs you have time to disengage and fall back into range of other friendly assets. Traditional dogfighting is something pilots are encouraged to avoid at all costs. Why would you want to get into a fair fight with the world's most advanced fighter against a less capable opponent? It makes no sense. Always coordinate with friendly assets and be prepared to make a handoff. It's the same thing we trained for in the Army with ground fights. Running low on ammo for your tanks? Hand off the fight to your reserve, consolidate, reconstitute, resupply and get back in the fight.

[@therealmp40]

@@josephahner3031 Just because modern missiles are more resistant to cms doesn't mean they will never work, even the best IR seeker heads will fall for enough flares. Of course, like I said, ideally you will never have to use guns, but also like I said it never hurts to have one. Air combat can develop unpredictably into a situation where you are forced to stay in the fight by yourself. Against an inferior enemy who can't even match the engagement range of your SARH or active homing missiles, sure you can just choose to not engage or leave things to a wingman if you are low on missiles. But I've always thought that for example with the push towards stealth technology we have on aircraft, we might come to a point where two groups of aircraft can't detect each other until fairly close to each other, and they might be forced into actual within visual range fighting, and in that context a fight could develop into a situation where you would need or have the opportunity to use guns, and it's at that point where you'd wish you had a gun. Don't get me wrong, I know the chances of something like that happening are slim, but so is something like getting shot down over an area you have complete air supremacy over, that doesn't mean I wouldn't want my aircraft to have an ejection seat though, and so on.

[@josephahner3031]

@@therealmp40 an ejection seat doesn't take up tons more weight that can be used for other things like fuel storage or maybe even another missile so the tradeoff is relatively minor. With a gun your talking about one to three tons between the gun and ammo. The US armed forces never engage in a fair fight and a gun fight is one scenario in which a technically inferior enemy could get the upper hand on a superior enemy. You run low on ammo, you bug out and hand off the fight to a reserve element. It's not terribly difficult for the USAF and US Navy to do because of the number and capabilities of US battlefield management systems like the E-3 sentry. Also it's not like guns don't run out of ammo too. With a likely 3 or more to 1 advantage the chance that a pilot might need to gun kill an enemy plane is astronomical, or so low that the extra fuel or additional hard point will be more useful 99.999% of the time. I really don't see the appeal of guns for fighters anymore except as low cost ground attack weapons.

[@laetrille]

You are back!!! Yay

[@krakke3188]

Thx, this was a great and informative video!

[@TLTeo]

One more point to demolish the "gun solved everything" claims is to look at the F-8 Crusader. Crusader pilots flew an aircraft called "the last of the gunfighters", were one of only two pilot communities emphasizing air to air combat (the other being the F-104C folks), and achieved...15 kills with missiles versus 3 with guns. Sure, the gun gave greater flexibility, but even 50 years ago it wasn't close to being the main air to air weapon anyway.

[@Tigershark_3082]

The gun on the Crusader was also pretty shit, since it would jam under anything more than 1G.

[@conroypaw]

The F-8 Crusader was very much loved by its pilots and was considered "Last of the Gunfighters" because it was the last fighter created with cannons being its PRIMARY armament. It did carry up to four AIM-9 Sidewinders, which accounted for most of its kills. The point is, that the gun gave the F-8 the flexibility of engagements, where there is no minimum range, and the option to employ a weapon outside AIM-9 engagement parameters.

[@TLTeo]

@@conroypaw If an aircraft gets most of its kills with missiles (ie, missiles are the primary means of shooting down stuff), what makes you say the primary armament is the gun? I agree the gun adds flexibility, but otherwise your argument just does not hold up.

[@StudleyDuderight]

Sweden also built aircraft without guns. The Viggen does not have a built-in gun and is still in limited service today.

[@SPYK3O]

It's also worth noting that the Navy and USAF Phantoms operated in different regions and often performed different roles. The USAF Phantoms flew much farther into hostile territory while the Navy generally operated in coastal regions.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

I'd dispute that statement.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

The other thing that the “iT nEeDs A gUn” crowd invariably miss, is that nowadays the primary and in the last 30 years, sole combat use of fighter aircraft guns, has been ground support, against non-conventional forces lacking strong anti-air.

[@trespire]

In the Israeli Lebanese war of 1982, and IAF Phantom scored a kill by dropping the empty centerline tank on a Syrian Mig's tail. The Phantom pilot had used up the missiles and all the gun ammo. The Mig was at pulling up at low altitude, but lost stability due to tail damage. I read this in the base library in a book documenting squadron actions.

[@MikoyanGurevichMiG21]

No one flew the Phantoms better than the Israelis did, as is with a lot of US Aircraft that actually had more successes with customers abroad than in US Service. Right up there with Iran's F14s which put up a remarkable show against Iraq even if they were much inferior to their American brothers because of sanctions.

[@everythingman987]

To be fair that was a lucky shot. There's no targeting system for dropping external tanks onto enemy aircraft. Since WWII this has been tried many times, sometimes the tanks hit the enemy aircraft, other times not.

[@trespire]

@@everythingman987 Had nothing to do with luck. The incounter read the Phantom pilot was hot on the Migs tail and had him in his sights. The Phantom still had enough fuel to keep fighting but all the ammo was spent. The Israeli fighter pilot was hell bent on downing the Mig and just kept on pushing. The other pilots in the squadron made a joke about him "shooting off his load" too early.

[@conner6926]

I love you.

[@Kabir911]

wait, didnt dalek14mc maked more videos? what happened

[@LaikaTheG]

Never understood the "flying brick" nickname because the phantom is quite maneuverable, especially when considering it was meant to be a bomber-interceptor. For its day, it had insane thrust, especially against the BISes the NVA used, and had a reasonable amount of nose authority and sustained turn rate, kind of like a worse f14. The BIS struggles in AOA due to common flame outs owing to intake it has and has, comparably, way less thrust so if you lose corner speed (at corner it does turn better than the phantom) its harder to gain back than in the phantom. Many pilots complained about the lack of the gun before the 4E and then once they got it and Top Gun (and the Air Force equivalent) was invented the pilot's then, ironically, complained the 4E was too heavy in the nose and way less maneuverable. It still was more maneuverable than the mig23 that came years after it so that should tell you something

[@bennittotheburrito9606]

It looks like a brick

[@amazingstealth8235]

I remember having an argument with someone about BVR and WVR/dogfighting air combat. I defended that WVR and dogfighting was still alive and would continue on small-scale conflicts. The other people said that WVR combat was all of air combat nowadays thanks to missile technology. I wasn't able to find a graph for "WVR kills vs BVR kills", instead only finding "WVR MISSILE kills vs BVR MISSILE kills vs Gun kills", which didn't work in this case since BVR missiles can be used in dogfights as well. Two fighters won't always fire at maximum range. And in small conflicts, it's likely that even if BVR missiles are fired, it will already be within visual range. True BVR will only happen in a direct conflict between NATO and Russia or China, a true WWIII, when there's no need to identify what your enemy is, or to wait for confirmation to open fire. That is, of course, if we survive the "nuke everything" stage of it.

[@JeffDM]

This is very good, I like how misconceptions were cleared up. I suggest spelling out the meaning of acronyms on first use rather than assume the audience knows what they mean. (BVR)

[@bombsaway6340]

Rules of engagement were a factor, too. You can’t take a BVR shot when the ROE requires you visually identify the target. By time you see a target you’re seconds from a knife fight.

[@warrenchambers4819]

I'll answer 1st then watch. This question comes up alot regarding the F4. Military equipment is designed specifically for the intended role that said the F4 was designed for "Stand off" capability no for closing with the enemy. Now with any legendary item such as the F4 or P-51 etc when so many such questions arise it means only one thing. Said component was OUTSTANDING! Just as the F4 was, I personally believe the F4 earns the title of best all around aircraft ever produced as it did it all exceptionally well.