Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernDZ
I was going to say the same thing. During the 1970s There was a mad scramble to outfit the F-4 Phantom with guns; a removable machine gun pod under the fuselage was what they finally came up with. I was reminded of this when I attended a SWCS instructor offsite with GEN Boykin chairing. They were looking for an alternative to Robin Sage because, "We're never going to conduct UW - we might need to design a FID exercise." less than 20 months later we were operating with the Northern Alliance.
|
You're right, Mike. The F-4 didn't have guns at first. The Sparrow missiles for long range intercepts had about a 50%+ failure rate so they'd fire two at once to cover their bets. Still, more times than not, the missile would end up in some rice paddy. The sidewinders were good up close, but they couldn't be used against ground clutter and into the sun. There was nothing else when those were gone.
The no-gun design had its roots in the 1950s. The F-102 had only missiles and the F-106 (originally F-102B) had a Genie missile in the center bay. It was unguided: The pilot would point the aircraft into the general area of the formation of bombers, launch, and beat feet in the opposite direction. The warhead was a nuke. This bowling ball tactic was centered on the thinking at the time that large enemy bomber formations could be engaged from a distance and there would be no more dogfights. The NV Air Force, aided by Soviet pilots proved that wrong.
The F-4E had a nose-mounted Gatling gun. It was heralded as a huge step forward, except for the pilots who knew from the beginning that the doctrine from which the F-4 was originally designed.
Gen Boykin, not exactly a visionary, had the same line of thinking when he was looking for a removal of UW from the SF quiver. That's what happens when non-SF types command SF units and schools. The short-sighted are usually proven wrong, usually sooner than later.
(Richard - thanks for the cool video.)
