http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-8_Crusader

 

“On 7 May 1977, two Crusaders went separately on patrol against supposedly French Air Force (4/11 Jura squadron) F-100 Super Sabres stationed at Djibouti. The leader intercepted two fighters and engaged a dogfight (supposed to be a training exercise) but quickly called his wingman for help as he had actually engaged two Yemeni MiG-21 Fishbeds. The two French fighters switched their master armament to "on" but, ultimately, everyone returned to their bases. This was the only combat interception by French Crusaders.” What if…?

 

At Medium Altitude, the chance encounter ocurs. I pixie dusted the French pilots as Experienced while the North Yemanese Competent.

 

F-8E(FN) Man Rating: 3.5 Gun: 3.72 Damage: 21 Max Speed: 675

MiG-21bis Man Rating: 3.5 Gun: 3.18 Damage: 17 Max Speed: 660

 

Given that the passage indicates the French completely not expecting MiG’s, I allowed the Fishbed-N’s to roll for possible Surprise. Two aircraft maneuvering on two aircraft results in a 20% chance of surprise. The MiG’s roll 96. No surprise. The furball begins.

 

The dogfight radius is 6nm. The Crusaders, due to their speed advantage, get the first shots. Since their Matra 530’s are not “dogfight” capable, the go to guns. The gun rating of 3.72 and cross referencing with a Target Damage Rating of 17 equals a Gun Lethality Index of .40. The pK is the cross referenced result of .40 and 0 (maneuver difference) = 0.12, shifted to 0.16 due to pilot quality. Rolls of 83 and 07 down one Fishbed-N.

 

The surviving MiG ripple fires (is that allowed – multiple missiles at the same target?) two dogfight capable IRH (Atoll AA-2d) R-13M. The Maneuver Difference remains at 0. The Crusader maneuver rating of 3.5 is subtracted from the Atoll’s ATA rating of 2.5 is -1.0, whuch is then lowered to -2.5 after the 1st generation Atoll is cross referenced with the 2nd Generation Decoys of the Crusader. The pilot quality causes a shift of one left and up. The pK is 0.01. The first two Atolls miss on rolls of 54, and 33.

 

In the 2nd round, both Crusaders attempt gun attacks and miss (45, 32). The MiG-21 rolls 01, 90 with his last two missiles, downing one of the F-8E’s.

 

In the 3rd round, the Crusader misses the Mig with a roll of 62. The Fishbed attempts to escape but on a roll of 6, after pilot quality modification it fails to escape.

 

In the 1st round of the second Tactical Turn, the surviving Crusader shoots down the MiG-21 with a roll of 10.

 

 

Can multiple air to air missiles be launched at the same target?

Can multiple air to air missiles be launched at the same target?

 

Depending on the missile and launching aircraft, yes.

 

Looks like you're dealing with 'fire and forget' heat seekers here, so no reason why more than one couldn't be launched at the same target. For early generation IR seekers, there were probably some practical limitations when it comes to immediately shooting a second missile, i.e. the hot rocket exhaust of the first potentially interfering with the seeker of the second.

 

It gets more complicated when you add semi-active radar guided missiles to the mix, but iirc, it was part of Soviet air combat doctrine for the AA-10 Alamo to shoot both a SARH variant and an IRH variant at the same target.

Can multiple air to air missiles be launched at the same target?

 

Depending on the missile and launching aircraft, yes.

 

Looks like you're dealing with 'fire and forget' heat seekers here, so no reason why more than one couldn't be launched at the same target. For early generation IR seekers, there were probably some practical limitations when it comes to immediately shooting a second missile, i.e. the hot rocket exhaust of the first potentially interfering with the seeker of the second.

 

It gets more complicated when you add semi-active radar guided missiles to the mix, but iirc, it was part of Soviet air combat doctrine for the AA-10 Alamo to shoot both a SARH variant and an IRH variant at the same target.

 

Thanks Brad. My question is more to how the H4.1 rule handle/allow for it. It was late so I'll need to do some more reasearch in the rules. From my Vietnam air war readings, I recall that two missiles were often fired at a target due to the relative unreliability of the 1960's and early 70's AAM's. This engagement apparently ocurred in 1977.

Thanks Brad. My question is more to how the H4.1 rule handle/allow for it. It was late so I'll need to do some more reasearch in the rules. From my Vietnam air war readings, I recall that two missiles were often fired at a target due to the relative unreliability of the 1960's and early 70's AAM's. This engagement apparently ocurred in 1977.

 

Oh, I know, and I didn't have a copy of the H4.1 rules in front of me when I provided my two cents, so I guess my point is that I don't see why there would be any reason for a special rule.

so I guess my point is that I don't see why there would be any reason for a special rule.

 

That IS probably why I will most likely find no special provision in the rules. It's an impossibility to list everything that you can't do.

The radar on the F-14 Tomcat allowed it to track multiple targets and fire at more than one.

The radar on the F-14 Tomcat allowed it to track multiple targets and fire at more than one.

 

Yes. But this engagement is 1977 French/North Yemen with F-8E(FN) and MiG-21bis.

Wasn't launching a salvo of "Atolls" into the fight then leaving a MiG-21 tactic in Vietnam?

probably, dug out my copy of Clashes yesterday. Trying to find the time to the reference to their tactics without re-reading the book.

probably, dug out my copy of Clashes yesterday. Trying to find the time to the reference to their tactics without re-reading the book.

 

Clashes, by Marshall L. Michel III, Page 142: "GCI guided the MiG-21s to the tightly packed strike flight, with its highly visiable smoke trail, and the MiGs made a sequential diving attack at very high speed, firing their Atolls at about 1 mile range. When the first MiG was seen (often only after he fired his Atolls), it sometimes distracted the U.S. flights, and they did not see the second MiG-21, three miles behind the first, until too late.

 

After they fired, the MiGs accelerated straight through at high speed, then climbed and headed for the Chinese border as fast as they could go, about Mach 2. If the U.S. MIGCAP jettisoned its tanks and attempted to follow these MiGs, a second pair of MiG-21s could attack the strike force, especially if the North Vietnamese GCI controller detected an opening in the area the escorts had left. The U.S. aircrews were totally frustrated by the MiG-21's tactics. More than one Air Force pilot commented that 'the best flying job in the world today is a MiG-21 pilot out of Phuc Yen'"

 

A bit long-winded, but it does appear that the MiG-21's volley fired their Atolls in one, all for nothing, diving/slashing attack, and then get out of dodge. So volley firing in this instance would also be justified.

Another (short) narrative of the Djibouti incident, and lots of data about the F-8E(FN)/F-8P:

http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/crusader/crusader.htm

 

Another fine french site (in french):

http://www.netmarine.net/aero/aeronefs/crusader/index.htm

et installation d'un détecteur d'alerte radar, qui faisait cruellement défaut depuis vingt ans

 

And more data about missile disponibilities and alternate missile loads:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f8_16.html

Often, an infrared-homing R530 would be carried in one side of the fuselage, with a radar-homer on the other side

The quartet of four 20-mm cannon was retained, as well as the ability to carry four fuselage-mounted AIM-9B Sidewinder missiles

The Sidewinder infrared-homing missile was still compatible with the F-8E(FN), but it was very rarely carried

In late 1989, the Matra R530 was withdrawn from service. In 1973, the Matra R550 Magic short range infrared-homing air-to-air missile was added to the Crusader's armament suite. The all-aspect Magic 2 was made available in 1988

 

For me, in 1977 the F-8E(FN) has not RWR nor "2 gen Decoys", only the F-8P after 1992, and a normal loadout in 1977 will be 2xR.550 Magic 1.

Thanks a lot BP. As it is such a quick scenario, I'll re-do with your findings and post the result here.

 

[Edit: Nice F-8 site as well]

Did a re-play tonight. Granted the MiG-21's surprise - allows them a shot without a French response. Both MiG's volley fired their eight Atoll-b's downing one Crusader. In the second round the the surviving Crusader fires its two R.550 Magic 1's but both miss. The MiG's attempt, but fail to escape the furball. In the third round the Crusader gets in position behind the fleeing MiG's and fires his quad Mk12 20mm but misses. One MiG-21 escapes the dogfight.

 

In the first (4th) round of the second 3minute tactical turn, the Crusader essentially does not get a good position on the last MiG-21, missed the roll with an 80. The final MiG-21 then successfully rolls to escape the dog fight. Not a good day for the Marine Nationale losing one F-8E (FN).

Yes, I think in the last years of service the F-8E(FN)/P was more a morale boost than a credible fighter.

Just imagine 2 or 4 F-8 in opposition to 9 or 27 Backfires !!!

But otherwise a very fine, interesting and handsome plane, too.

This may morph into a Etendard/Super Etendard strike on a Yemeni airfield, most likely Al Hudayah. Took a look at it in google earth. May want to cut the single runway, target the control tower, maybe catch four or so MiG-21's on the ground, defense could be a couple of ZU-23's, and perhaps an S-60 57mm gun battery (six guns).