Видео

THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE F-106 MISSILES. They had a PK (Probability of Kill) of over 90%. The problem the F-4s had in Vietnam was that the F-4 did not have the computer system needed to launch the missiles properly. The AIM-4 was better than the Sidewinder or the Sparrow. The F-106 was faster than the F-4 when combat loaded, could out-turn the F-4, had an excellent radar, and had BETTER missiles. Robin Olds was WRONG about the AIM-4. He blamed the AIM-4 missiles, while the problem was really the F-4's lack of an adequate computer. I will never forgive Robin Olds for giving the AIM-4 a bad name.

@spiritofattack Thanks for the clarification, Bruce! I have to question the 90% Pk though, since even AMRAAMs and AIM-9X fired from AESA-equipped Eagles don't get that in combat. I should imagine that figure would have come from weapons tests stateside against non-maneuvering targets. I'm curious to know what the AIM-9 and AIM-7 got in similar tests. The infamous 11% Pk of the AIM-7 in Vietnam had a lot to do with the climate conditions and pilots taking close, high-aspect shots at MiG-17s. I love your stories and I love the Six!

@@JETZcorp The 90+% PK was the statistic that was determined by test firings in Florida over the years. I fired the AIM-4 missiles several times, and had hits every time. One of my hits (against a BOMARC missile, front attack with a Mach 3.5 closing rate) was a very short missile preparation time because safety didn't clear me to fire soon enough. I thought it would fail, but the computer used "computer time" instead of "real time", as it was programmed to do in tight situations, and it fired the missile quckly and effectively. The missile guided perfectly and hit the BOMARC's left engine spike (I saw it pretty close up!) and blew off the BOMARC's left wing. I also fired using infrared tracking against a drone. I misjudged the range to the target, and fired much too close. The missile guided perfectly and blew the drone to bits -- I was so close that I actually flew through the fireball and got some scratches on my wings! I think the Sidewinder or the Sparrow would have missed both times. The AIM-4 was better than the Sidewinder or the Sparrow for close in shots. Those missiles had a high boost rocket motor that made them go really fast, but during acceleration their controls were locked and didn't guide. So, their minimum fire distance was fairly long. The AIM-4 Falcon had a double boost system, a high boost to get it away for the fighter, then a sustained slower-burning rocket motor which lasted for some time. The result was that the AIM-4 would guide at much closer ranges than the Sidewinder or Sparrow. The AIM-4 also had much bigger fins and control surfaces. It would go more slowly, but was much more maneuverable. An enemy could outmaneuver a Sidewinder more easily than he could outmaneuver a Falcon. The Sidewinder would be coasting, without power, while the Falcon's bigger fins and long-burning rocket motor gave it maneuverability in hard turns. I'd rather have the AIM-4 Falcons than the Sidewinder or Sparrow.

I tried the maneuver in the F-106 that #williamcobb422 mentioned. We also put in full opposite rudder. It was extremely violent. I had my wingman behind me, and he said it was no probem following me -- but he was amazed that my plane held together. I never did it again -- it might tear the plane apart! Instead, we did the "rudder roll" of pulling the stick straight back and adding rull rudder. The F-106 would pitch up and roll, losing about 150 knots in seconds. Anyone behind you would go on past you and you'd roll out on his tail. Then you had to accelerate to catch him, but now you were behind him!

Yes. I flew the T-34, T-28, T-33, F-86L, F-102, F-106 and the F-100. Did you say that you got the F-100 to go supersonic with external tanks? I have been to Mach 1.98 with tanks on in the F-106. The F-106 was a much better plane than the F-100, except it didn't carry bombs. To be useful in Vietnam, you had to carry bombs.

I believe you are correct. I thought it was a USAF RC-121. I didn't even know that the Navy was flying EC-121s. I found out more after making the video. After publishing the video, I found out that my RC-121 designation was incorrect. I honor the men who flew those missions and who died to protect our country. Whether it was an RC-121 or an EC-121 doesn't matter to my basic story. It was a low, slow, vulnerable plane and we were there to protect it. We did. I wonder what would have happened if the MiGs hadn't turned back...

@@spiritofattack Two years ago, I made a presentation to my Rotary Club on April 15, 2022 about the incident. Here is the presentation: ruclips.net/video/s9hq30YSGNM/видео.htmlsi=CzD9_Kva-FJKLpOL

I don't remember your father -- but he and I were in the 317th at the same time and I flew T-33s while I was there. I remember a story that your father was probably inolved in. I have a video in my You Tube Spirit of Attack Balloons in Alaska that tells it. A balloon came over Alaska at low altitude. We didn't want the 317th's F-102 to shoot it, because the missiles would home in on the instrument package, which is what we wanted to look at. A sergeant in the T-33 section suggested that we use the target towing rig on a T-33. He took a small anchor from our Personal Services small fishing boats, sharpened the flukes, and attached it to the small cable used to tow targets. The T-33 flew to the balloon and reeled out the anchor on the thin cable. The T-33 flew low over the balloon, and the anchor snagged the balloon and popped it. The thin cable snapped, so the T-33 flew home safely. The balloon fell into the forest, and we recovered it. I don't know any more details of where it was from or what it was doing. Your father may well have been flying that T-33!

ruclips.net/video/63-e1ko007g/видео.html

​@@spiritofattack I'm so sorry, I had a retort written out for you and my computer crashed, again. Uggg! I am so excited to get the response from you and to get your story! It made me cry! My father passed on from Agent Orange in 1987 and I still miss him so very much. My parents were just some of the best parents anyone could ever have. I was so blessed to have them as parents. I'd love to send you some photos if you have an email! One photo is of my father and another soldier snowshoeing back to a tandem-rotor helicopter way out in the middle of nowhere in a snow covered valley. I believe they are training out in the middle of ... Alaska somewhere? Another he took while flying over Alaska ( I think. LOL) in his aircraft. I have some I feel you'd might enjoy! Again , thank you so very much for getting back to me so quickly, Best thing that has happened in a LONG time. I'm hoping more than anything to find some video of him so I can hear his voice again. Remember back in the day when the guys went to Korean and Vietnam and they and their wives would often send cassette tapes back and forth? I found a few cassettes with my mom's and my voice talking to my father, but his voice was taped over. Thanks again so very much! I loved your story and that you're willing to share with everyone! Kathryn Carroll (My father was Col. William R. Carroll Jr. ) (More below)

Do you attend the Phan Rang reunions? At last year's reunion, we had some very good speakers about the early days of Phan Rang, and the rocket attacks in January 1970. I didn't get there until September 1970. One of the speakers was from the early days, and showed the wooden sidewalks and the mud. Are you interested in a reunion? Doug Severt is the man running ther reunion this year..dougsevert@cox.net

@@spiritofattack Thank you for that connection, I'll send him an email.

I watched it again -- it brings back memories! There was another engagement that I had with the same instructor, which I didn't describe because the video would get too long. The second one ended when I was on his tail and he dove to escape, but went below our safety altitude and I called the fight off for safety reasons. I had another unofficial dogfight while in Vietnam (purely against regulations, as we were armed and had not pre-briefed it). That is described in my video on "Rudder Reversal".

Stealth DOES work. The design provides cooling air to reduce IR from the sides and cools the jet exhaust. The aircraft tail section is designed to shield the exhaust from view except from directly behind. Attacking planes would be detected long before they got to the 6 o’clock position to see the IR. As I said in the video, IR has many limitations which make it less useful than radar for combat. Stealth does not make an aircraft invisible, just low observable. Tests have shown that stealth fighters completely dominate non stealth fighters.. It’s not even close.

Thank you for your comment. T remember my basic flight training instructor warmly. He was a civilian contractor like your dad and helped me enjoy flying!

Interesting -- it never occurred to me that the North Koreans might think that we had Genie nuclear weapons on board. We didn't even have them in Korea. I'm glad we didn't have them - using them would have changed history. From a tactical viewpoint, if the four of us were going toward the 20 MiGs, and one of us fired a nuclear weapon, it would likely have blinded the other three pilots who would be looking out of the cockpit to see the MiGs. We were trained to call "20 SECONDS TO BIG BANG" when our computer calculated 20 seconds to fire, so other pilots in the area could look down in their cockpits and not be looking at the fireball. However, we had never practiced it and I'm not confident that the call would have been made. I had confidence in our IR and radar missiles. I'm glad we didn't have the Genie!

@@spiritofattack Thank you for the reply. I always enjoy your presentations. I certainly cannot argue with your insight. It was just a bit of imagination and "I wonder if..." Followed by, "I should ask Col. Gordon." I admit I also pondered the ramifications of launching a Genie in that theater. I spent the following year TDY to K2 & K8 supporting F4Ds. I had many sleepless nights from the Norks trying to penetrate the bases. Blues skies and much respect to you sir.

@@shadowgunner69 I had never thought of the Genie -- now your comment makes me wonder if the North Korean MiGs might really have thought we had the Genie loaded. Sometimes they believe their own misinformation. During the Berlin Blockade in 1948, the US sent B-29 bombers to England. The Russians knew that the B-29 had dropped atomic bombs on Japan, and assumed that those B-29's represented a nuclear threat. In fact, it took big modifications for the B-29 to carry nuclear bombs, and the B-29s to England were not capable of carrying the Bomb. It was a nuclear threat without any nukes! We thought that Saddam Hussain in Iraq was working on nukes, but he wasn't. We believed he would poison gas, but he didn't. Maybe those MiG's turned back because they thought the F-106s carried Genies. I never thought of that before...

Alex -- We didn't have turn rate data on fighters in the 1960s. It wasn't classified -- we simply didn't have it and didn't use it! We did have charts showing the number of G's available at different speeds and altitudes. You've created the need for turn rae data with DCS computing! We'd take the two planes up in formation, light afterburneres and did maximum turns. We saw which one turned tightest, and which one lost airspeed. HAVE DOUGHNUT put a MiG-21F against an F-106. They did turn, and the F-106 maintained its speed while completing the turn faster than the MiG-21, but as the MiG-21 slowed, it turned in a smaller radius so that it was pulling a gun lead on the F-106. The conclusion was that the F-106 shouldn't turn with the MiG-21, even if the F-106 maintained speed better, because the MiG-21 could shoot you down in the turn. People say that the delta wing would lose speed in a tight turn, but our J-75 engine was so powerful that we kept speed better in a turn than the MiG-21. The differfence in altitude was critical in turns. The F-106 had a low wing-loading of 52 pounds/sq ft, against the F-15's 73.1 psf, so the F-106 could out-turn the F-15 at altitude (I heard of someone who did it). The F-16 wing loading was 88.3 psf, so the F-106 should be able to out-turn the F-16 at altitude. However, at low altitudes the wing loading is not the determining factor in thicker air, so I expect the F-15 and probably the F-16 could could out-turn the F-106 at low altitudes. The F-106 was faster than the F-16. We discovered in unofficial rat-race engagements that the F-106 could out-turn the F-4, and I discovered in an exercise that the F-105 and F-106 were about the same around Mach 1.5. I flew the F-106 against the F-102, and had plenty of power to go vertical but the F-102 could always out-turn me. I heard of F-102s out-turning the F-100 in rat races. We passed around stories of engagements, but we never the measured data that you're looking for.

Alex -- this is some data that I digested from the HAVE DOUGHNUT tests in Area 51: MIG-21F Area 51 1968 MIG-21F 8,600 lbs dry, 12,650 lbs A/B gross weight 19,235 lbs. = 0.65 thrust/weight F-106 16,100 lbs dry, 24,500 lbs A/B gross weight 34,510 lbs. = 0.71 thrust/weight MiG has severe buffering above 595 KIAS Gunsight not useful above 3 G’s, pipper jitter ACCELERATION 35,000’ starting at 200 knots, were even up to .95, then F-106 moved out to 2,000 to 3,000 feet ahead due to ease in getting through Mach. Accelerated only to Mach 1.25, where the F-106 gets better. The MiG nose cone positioning has only three positions: subsonic, Mach 1.5, and Mach 2, while the F-106 variable ramp is activated at Mach 1.2 and programs up to Mach 2+. TURNS 35,000 feet. F-106 in optimum turn at Mach 1.2. F-106 bled down to 3 G and 250 knots. The MiG bled down to 2 1/2 G and 200 knots. Although the F-106 had more speed, the MiG was able to stay inside the F-106 turn. INTERCEPTS F-106 had contacts at 18-25 miles, depending on angle, enough for positioning and firing. However, when not given GCI, both the MiG and the F-106 passed through the area, most of the time without seeing each other. GCI is needed.

@@spiritofattack Hi Bruce, I wasnt expecting a response so quickly! Its a shame to hear that there are in fact no charts about the turn data, but Ive gone over the manuevering chart with a retired fighter pilot friend of mine and Ive learned some things, such as the corner speed being 350 KCAS at sea level. I have heard that the climb charts can also tell you a lot about how it performed in other aspects. All is not lost just yet. On the topic of the weapon manual, it seems there is only one and it encompasses all weapons including the Genie which is a bit of a punch in the gut because that complicates the declassification process. Im hoping now that 67 years after the 106 entered service the secrets of the Genie are now no longer valuable pieces of information. I mean it cant be that secret, its a rocket with a nuclear warhead, it doesnt seem too crazy to keep under wraps to me. I was hoping that there would have been two different manuals, one for the AIM-4s and one for the Genie, in which case it wouldnt be an issue as DCS doesnt allow nuclear weapons to be made anymore anyhow. In any case Im still going to file a FOIA request and see what happens, maybe itll bear fruit in the end. I didnt know the F-102 was a good turner! I always assumed it was underpowered and not very good as it was always in the F-106's shadow.

@@Newtype93 Alex, the F-102 was a lot better plane than we thought it was -- we always imagined that the F-100 could beat the F-102 in a dogfight. Nobody had ever tried. There was an exercise in Florida where F-100s were attacking the base and F-102s were defending, and we were surprised to find that the F-102 could beat the F-100! Of course, without a gun it was useless in a turning dogfight. I later flew the F-100 in Vietnam, and yes, the F-102 flew better than the F-100. I seldom went supersonic in the F-100 or the F-102, but went supersonic easily and often in the F-106. The F-102 didn't have any bad flying characteristics. Compare that to the F-100, which had severe adverse yaw problems and even its altimeter was inaccurate as speed changed. In the F-100 landing pattern, we'd come up on the initial at about 350 knots (I don't remember exactly) and would pitch out, pulling back on power, extending speed brakes, decreasing to 230 knots -- and we'd have to CLIMB about 400 feet because our altimeter error was changing with the slower airspeed, and by climbing 400 feet we were actually staying level! The altimeter was actually more accurate at slower speeds, so it was accurate for landing -- but what a poor design! The F-106 was a technological jump from the F-102, and also had the far more powerful J-75 engine which brought us to Mach 2 with external tanks! The F-106 weighed a lot more, so it couldn't turn with the F-102. I tried the F-106 against an F-102 in South Korea on a rat-race, and proved that the F-106 can't out-turn the F-102, but the F-106 sure had a lot more power to zoom out of trouble -- but the F-102 was always pointing at me... I have fired the non-nuclear Genie in practice, and have pulled many hours of Alert with the nuclear Genie. It should not be classified any more, except maybe the nuclear components, which weren't described in that detail in the manual. Almost everything was classified, and now should be declassified.

@@spiritofattack Bruce, I didnt know about the F-100's altimeter problem. The only thing I could think of is an issue with the static port but Im not pilot (yet) and all the information I know is from taking my PPL written test. Theres an F-100D being made for DCS by a developer by the name of Grinnelli, theres no ETA for it, but its progressing smoothly. Theres a few behind the scenes videos on it that Ill link here ruclips.net/video/yxoxfzGUzG4/видео.htmlsi=P1fmGyNZJK768p7b . I saw that the F-106 is only artificially limited to Mach 2 because of technical reasons, I assume it was due to external fuel tanks. I think I saw somewhere that it could fly up to 2.35. Nice to hear about the manual most likely being declassified. I am about to go through some background checks for my SIDA badge so that I can work at the airport, so I wont be requesting any information through FOIA until that process is done, lest it raise any red flags. And one last thing, Ive got a friend thats curious about the IRST. How good of a sensor was it, was it resistant to flares (if that was even tested), and was it susceptible to picking up hot spots from stuff on the ground or even clouds. I think you probably have talked about it in a video before so I'll go searching myself. This same friend thinks the F-106 also could have lived on should it have been upgraded with a new radar with updated AIM-4s. Hes been digging into the Hughes radar but information is scarce, if I remember correctly he found out that it was MTI. (Hes a big believer in the AIM-4 and thinks it would have been better than the Sidewinder given some more time.)

Wow! Great stories -- Harold's Air wasn't there when I was there -- interesting to hear how things turned out for Galena!

Send $20 (cash, check or PayPal) with your name & mailing address to Bruce Gordon, 105 Broadbill Ct., Georgetown KY 40324. I'll mail it to you postage and taxes paid. I usually sign it with my motto: "Jack - Always be spring-loaded in the GO position!"

Thank you! There isn't much information on the Web about what we really saw on our scopes in the 1960's.

Oh, yes, I remember Steve Canyon! Look around my Facebook / Spirit of Attack / Bruce Gordon page and you'll find a number of videos about the F-102. I enjoyed flying it -- it was a big, frightening plane at first, but when I got used to flying it, it became like putting on a suit of work clothes. It was my body, I was its brain. I loved the F-102 and then upgraded to the F-106, which we called "the sports model" with so much more thrust than the F-102. However, the F-102 had a lighter wing loading and could out-turn the F-106 -- one of the few planes that could out-turn the F-106!

Yes, indeed, I'm 89 years old and still kicking! I spend a lot of my time on Quora, which often asks interesting military questions. I often link them to my RUclips videos. The ones on infrared limitations and ECM still get good reviews!

@@spiritofattack so glad to hear that you are still around. Enjoy the heck out of your content! Keep it up. Happy New Year to you and Yours!

Thank you, Jack! I'm 89 years old now, but still going strong and very much interested in military aviation. My most important mission was probably during Nixon's Madman Nuclear Alert of 1969, which coincided with the Sino-Soviet dispute over the border along the Amur River that nearly led to war between Russia and China. I got involved in it by buzzing Russian warships off of North Korea. My Spirit of Attack / Something BIG #1 / and Something BIG #2 showed that Russia was about to invade China, but was apparently (accidentally) scared off by Nixon's Madman Nuclear Alert. It shows why China still does not trust Russia, and vice-versa. Watch those two videos!

Great to hear! I will go watch those videos right now!

Do you by chance know the names of those two videos?

@@JackHowe32 RUclips / Spirit of Attack / Something BIG#1 and Something BIG #2

Roger, going to check them out now! @@spiritofattack

I'm still doing quite well. At age 89 I'm still giving lectures at our local library. I follow developments in Ukraine closely, and am horrified that the US Congress failed to pass funding for Ukraine !

I love to hear from you! How is Tony doing? I'm 89 years old now, but doing well. I still give talks about the events that I witnessed. The most important events of my career are described in my two videos, Something BIG #1 and Something BIG #2 on RUclips. That happened and has implications in today's relations between Russia and China. It's partly covered on the Internet under the Madman Nuclear Alert of 1969, but I saw how it was simultaneous with the Sino-Soviet incident over the Amur River islands. By buzzing Russian warships, I got in the middle of it!

I remember that the geese saved Rome, but I don't remember meeting you. Where was it that we met? Tell me more.

@@spiritofattack we were discussing the video you recollected whiskey compass and how it helped you to return on right heading flying T33.

@@khatokhato9350 Ah, yes, I remember a discussion about the whiskey compass! It was very complex to use, especially in turns. We studied it for hours in classrooms -- but now it's seldom used.

@@spiritofattack I am glad we are having conversation again! I am just back from my friend. Back in 80s he was an employee on aircrafts manufacturing facility. They were manufacturing su25s. His objective was testing the electrical circuitry of the aircraft. He recollected the quality of assembly was so poor, that first plain when flown lost its wing and collapsed. After it was investigated that the fasteners were forcibly stuck with hammers into holes, because the wing and fuselage attachment holes did not coincide exactly. Once flown the joints cannot withstand the forces and broken off!

@@khatokhato9350 I heard that the first production SU-27 crashed on its delivery flight. Never heard why it crashed. In the USA, planes are test-flown at the factory before they are delivered. There are always likely to be some problems, but big problems should be fixed before the plane is delivered to the military.

Thanks. The basics of EW are still there, even after the equipment has been superseded with much smaller and faster systems.

@@spiritofattack, Do you believe modern pilots required to understand EW to the extent that you were required to understand it back then?

@@terjeoseberg990 No, I don't think modern pilots know as much about ECM as we did in the 1960's. In the 1960's we saw raw radar on the computer and could see the ECM actively working and could see the effect of our ECCM. Now the pilot doesn't see raw radar, but sees a computer display. The computer decides what ECCM to use. The pilot doesn't have to know the kinds of ECM; the computer does it for him. We did a few informal tests in the 1970s which showed this. A pilot with no ECM experience in an F-15 was defeated by an ECM target -- he didn't realize that his computer was goofed up. A pilot with experience in ECM from interceptors quickly recognized the computer error, changed his attack profile, and got the target. We did the same thing with F-4s. A regular F-4 crew with no ECM experience was defeated; an F-4 crew with interceptor ECM experience got the target. Seeing ECM on your scope, and interpreting it correctly, was important. I'm sure the computers these days are much better with ECCM, but my point is that the pilots no longer see raw radar and therefore leave it up to the computer to decide what to do. The pilot doesn't have to know as much about ECM as we did in the 1960's or 1970's.

Thanks! I'm 89 years old now but still going strong. My most important videos are "Something BIG #1" and "Something BIG #2", but they don't get as much attention. I saw proof that Nixon's Madman Nuclear Alert of 1969 came at the same time as the Sino-Soviet dispute had the Russians ready to attack China. I saw a Soviet fleet off of North Korea. Probably the most important moment of my career -- I gave a talk about it at our local Library a few day ago... I think it's the least known major Cold War event.

Me

Good questions. Yes, the artificial horizon and steering dot show the F-102s position, not the target’s bank angle. The number 30 shows that the 30 mile scope is selected, not the range to the target. The range to the target is estimated by the pilot looking at the target’s position on the jizzle band, where the jizzle band represents 30 miles on a 30 mile scope. 600 knots overtake would be if the gap in the outer circle was at the 6 o’clock position. In this case, the trailing edge of the break is about the 4:30 position. I said 500 knots instead of 4:30 for simplicity. “Target is higher than you are” is from the antenna position marker on the right side of the scope, not the target in the jizzle band on the left. The antenna position shows the angle up to the target. Reading the scope takes practice.

Not normally. The ICBM is a ballistic missile and does not rely on outside signals, so is immune to ECM. Some missiles now use GPS satellite signals to improve their accuracy -- but then they're no longer ballistic, and it opens them to ECM against the GPS signals. The improvement in accuracy by using GPS might be worth the added vulnerability to ECM.

@@spiritofattack thanks, i thought ICBM rely on outside signals from satellite to reach long distance accuracy, and EW/ECM can disrupt it

@@Husker513 No, ICBMs don't normally rely on outside signals.

I was a bit surprised that the infrared Falcon AIM-4G missile could hit on the front quarter. To hit the BOMARC, it had to take a lead-collision path, which requires knowing the range to the target, which you don't get with IR. I vaguely remember hearing that the AIM-4G would take the range and closure rate from the F-106's MA-1 computer system - which got it from my radar lock-on. The angle was taken from its own guidance, and would keep the same angle that it had at launch. So, it would work if the target didn't maneuver. The time factor was so short (just seconds from launch to impact) that there was no time for the BOMARC to maneuver. The AIM-9L, if it takes everything from IR (which I believe is the case) does not have range to the target, which is essential to plot a lead collision course.

@@spiritofattack Do you think the F-106 would have done any better with the AIM-4 in combat than the F-4D, with the fire control system to manage the missiles, or would the unpredictability of manoeuvre combat and the limited supply of coolant have told against it as with the Phantoms? The Falcon didn't achieve many kills, with a kill rate similar to the Sparrow and Sidewinder, but every AIM-4D kill had to be a direct hit, so arguably the Falcon was the "better" missile. A pity the proximity-fuzed XAIM-4H never entered production.

@@Ensign_Cthulhu Yes, I think the F106 would have done better than the F-4 with the Falcon vs the Sidewinder. Our computer solved the problems about cooling. In the BOMARC attack, I could not arm the missile until the last few seconds because of safety reasons -- my Squadron Commander was too close to the target. I wasn't able to arm the missile until seconds before firing. The computer had a "time compression mode" where it made "computer seconds" shorter than "real seconds" and was able to launch the missile in seconds -- I can't remember exactly, but I would guess between 5 and 10 seconds before firing. The missile guided perfectly! The Falcon (AIM-4G) had a two-level rocket engine -- a quick power to get it away from the fighter, and a sustainer engine which kept thrust going for much longer. It also had bigger fins than the Sidewinder. The Sidewinder had a one-pulse motor which pushed the Sidewinder to very high speed, but then the motor burned out and the Sidewinder coasted to the target. The Sidewinder didn't guide while the rocket motor was burning, so at close range it could go right past the target without guiding. The result was that the Sidewinder couldn't handle a close-in target or a turning target as well as the Falcon. One more thing - the F-106 was NOT the best plane for Vietnam because we were designed for high altitude combat. Above 20,000 feet I think we could whip anybody, but below 20,000 feet our radar got cluttered by ground return, and our turning advantage of our light wing loading was not important at low altitude. In Vietnam, we could have cruised over Vietnam all day at 40,000 feet -- but the MiGs wouldn't have come up to do battle. MiGs only fought when the odds were in their favor, or to stop a strike force carrying bombs. A strike force loaded with bombs can't go very high, so they usually stayed pretty low -- and low altitude was not good for the F-106. Our flying high would not have been a good cover for a strike force at low altitude.

Thank you, Josef! SAGE was vacuum-tube technology, but it was a huge step forward.

There was a transition from a fired cartridge blasting the seat out, to using a rocket. The rocket had fewer spinal injuries. The F-106 had a bad ejection seat (that I flew with) that was designed for supersonic ejection. It was far too complex, and failed frequently, often causing the death of the pilot. Designed for supersonic ejection was wrong -- most ejections are slow and close to the ground, often under uncontrolled situations. Now the emphasis is on "zero-zero" ejections -- zero altitude at zero airspeed -- even ejecting while on the ground. It's a more important design to survive a low altitude, descending, out-of-control situation than a controlled supersonic ejection, which is rare.

The problem with these basic tactics is that the easy counter to it is to just turn into the attack. Turning into the attack will foul up all these easy maneuvers. It mostly works if the other guy doesn't see you! The basic defensive maneuver is to TURN INTO THE ATTACK.