Best fighter of the sixties?

1950Willys is correct.
The "Thud" gave a good account of itself as a F-ighter in the skies over North Vietnam. The vulcan-cannon in the nose dispatched a fair-number of NVA Migs.
It was big, fast and rugged... but not designed as a pure dogfighter. The USAF was obsessed with multi-role aircraft at that time. Not until the F-15 and F-16 appeared did we return to a pure-er form of dogfighting aircraft... with guns.

Tim

 

When did the gun become essentially obselete in dog fighting planes?

Like the F-16, etc, etc....not A-10 or AH-64.

 

It didn't.

 

MIG-21 sucks.

The only things it has going for it are its speed and I suppose it's agility.

The thing cant manuver worth a damn.

 

And it's agile.....it that the pilot you're thinking about?

TISO: Out of simple curiosity, how often do fighters use their cannon against another aircraft?

The A-10 is an ground attack aircraft (as denoted by the prefix 'A') They don't dogfight in those very often if at all.

Sidenote: The Warthog is also (in theory) the 10th design of such craft. (logically the F-35 should be the F-24....like it really makes a difference)

 

The US tried to replace main guns on fighters with A-t-A missiles. The F-4 Phantom was the first to go this route and results were not quite as well as expected. The USAF placed a Vulcan cannon in a gun pod on the center hard point on the F-4C and D but decided to have an internal gun design with the long nosed F-4E. The USN and RAF/RN stayed with the short nosed Phantoms and A-t-A missiles. I think most of the exported Phantoms except for those going to the UK had the long nose gun design.

Point of note, the gun equiped Phantoms still retained the A-t-A missile capability but simply added the Vulcan cannon for close dogfighting capability.

 

I think that there is not much MIG-21 involved in fights ower Vietnam,mostly was MIG-15 and MIG-17.
My vote 2 MIG-21,coz he was best plane in that period off thime,and he is still in use today.

 

There were some Mig-21 jets in Vietnam toward the end of the war. However, you are correct in that the majority were Mig-15 and Mig-17.

 

I voted for the Lightning as the best thoroughbred fighter but may have gone for the Phantom if I was looking at all round capability.

I'm a bit surprised that noone went for the Mirage.

 

Mirage III was a good low-cost dogfighter, but compared to the Phantom?

EE Lightning was the best interceptor.

Phantom was best all-rounder, thanks to its electronics fit.

 

And that MIG-15 and MIG-17 was worthy opponents fot USAF,but i dont hawe data about MIG-21 performance there.Once is shure,USAF base their sucess on good logistic,and comunications,i somehow think that VC lack of that.

 

I secretly cast a vote for the Chance-Vought F-8E Crusader... one of my all-time favorites.
Can I vote twice?

Tim

 

i heard at the beginning of the war the kill ratio for vietnamese and american fighters was 3:1 in favour of the americans.

I think was due to the american pilots relying on their missiles when facing the quicky and nimble soviet built fighters. IIRC , this is why they started the top Gun academy.

 

CSP:
You might be overly generous. I seem to remember a kill-ratio more like 2:1.
Yes, Top-Gun School was a result of Vietnam Wars' poor kill-ratio.

Personally, I think the USAF was too obsessed with multi-role aircraft... while the NVAF was equipped with nimble, cannon-armed fighters that picked their fights VERY carefully while their airfields protected with impunity from USAF air-strikes.
Gotta aidmire the Americans' "sporting-nature" eh?
The F-4 Phantom accounted itself very well, but it was no dog-fighter, and I imagine the pilots wished fervently for a vulcan cannon, which WAS standard-equipment on the F-105D Thunderchief.

Tim

 

US policy was to fight the Warsaw Pact countries over the skies of Europe. That priority is evident in the aircraft, armor, and arms of the late 1950's through the 1970's. It wasn't until after Vietnam that the US policy to fight small wars in other parts of the world came into being.

The F-4 was a multi-role aircraft because the government (not the Pentagon) wanted planes that both the USAF and USN could operate with little modification. It also had to do multiple roles so to not need other specialty aircraft and this would allow the government to use fewer planes.
As in other things in life, a design that is adequate at several task is usually not excellent at any.

 

Very true JC.
It's a credit to the F-4 that it capable-enough to perform all those roles, and excel at most. The 'Ol "Smoker" definitely endeared itself to many of it's aircrews. (It was nicknamed that because of the black tell-tale exhaust that billowed out of it's arse.) Not many USAF-designs translated into effective US Navy aircraft. The Phantom did.
When I showed-off a model of an Indiana ANG F-16C to the base commander, the discussion turned to the F-4 Phantom.
"Don't get me wrong" he says, "the F-16 is an excellent plane... but the F-4 Phantom? Now THERE was an aircraft."
Yup, THe F-4 made many friends over it's long-years of service.

Tim

 

When I was a kid, I remember being out on the river fishing and a couple of AL ANG Phantoms came over and the smoke tails were awsome to me at 10 years old.