F-15 vs F-5

Post by **VulcanDriver** » 14 Aug 2006, 19:46

I watched a video of a F-15 prototype taking on two F-5's in a mock dogfight. The F-15 lost. The commentator said it was touch and go if the F-15 would be selected for the USAF's new fighter.

The F-15 also had a hard time in mock combat with a RSAF English Electric Lightning, winning simply because the F-15 had superior radar / avionics. I wonder what would have happened if the Lightning had been continually updated with modern avionics.

Not that I'm knocking the F-15, its a superb fighter, but to me it doesn't have the appeal of the F-4. I always think the F-4 looks like Mike Tyson on a bad day, it just wants to have a fight...

Post by **BadPvtDan** » 14 Aug 2006, 20:01

Avionics plays a huge part in who is successful in a dogfight. The other part is the pilot, circumstances, etc. I would not read much into all of that.

An F-15 vs 2 F-5s in a knife fight would certainly be a difficult matchup. An F-15 shooting off his Aim-120s or sparrows before coming into sidewinder range and then guns would obliterate the 2 tiny fighters (which only carries sidewinders and guns).

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 14 Aug 2006, 20:06

The same could be said about the F3. Apparently the Hawk aggressor pilots have to really fly easier to let the F3's learn cos they'd whoop em otherwise

Post by **Firebird** » 14 Aug 2006, 21:03

Yep, just like Vietnam. look at the kill-loss ratio pre and post Top Gun program start up. The Phantom was the same, the enemy was the same, the pilots, the weapons - the telling factor was the training.

The first thing to learn is how NOT to get killed.

The Jason · Post by **The Jason** » 16 Aug 2006, 04:22

One disadvantage that fighters such as the F-15, F-14, and Su-27 have is their relative size. Those two fighters are much easier to spot at, lets say a mile away, than a fighter like the F-5 or MiG-21.

Say what you will about the F-15, it's combat record speaks for itself.

*I'm also in love with the Phabulous F-4 Phantom II, especially the RF-4B's of VMFP-3 @ MCAS El Toro. Those were the days!

Savage · Post by **Savage** » 16 Aug 2006, 09:24

Yes the Eagle has an amazing combat record, but bare in mind it's never actaully faced an equally capable foe in conflict (as far as I can remember)...

Post by **VulcanDriver** » 16 Aug 2006, 12:39

Has the F-15 ever been up against a MiG-29 or Su-27? The Luftwaffe flew MiG-29s after the wall came down and I was wondering if they tested them against USAF F-15s based in Germany?

John

Post by **Firebird** » 16 Aug 2006, 19:46

I seem to remember that post unification that quite a few Luftwaffe birds were crated up and shifted out to Area 51, I believe (Although I am willing to be corrected on this), and I think that a MiG-23 crashed out there. So my guess is that at least some tests were down.

Post by **Weescotty** » 17 Aug 2006, 22:14

Little known story about 2 F-15s that bounced a Eurofighter Typhoon that was out on a 'training' flight.

"IT might be over budget and years late but the Eurofighter Typhoon has shown that it can shake off America's best fighter plane and shoot it down.

A chance encounter over the Lake District between a Eurofighter trainer and two F-15 aircraft turned into a mock dogfight, with the British plane coming off best - much to the surprise of some in the RAF. The episode was hushed up for fear of causing US blushes.

For a project 10 years late and $8bn over budget, it is a welcome piece of good news.

The 'clash' took place last year over Windermere when the two-seater RAF Eurofighter was 'bounced' from behind by the two F-15E fighters.

The US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless 'Limey' for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down.

But much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails.

The British pilots themselves were almost as surprised at winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world."

mikewmac · Post by **mikewmac** » 18 Aug 2006, 01:51

Weescotty wrote:Little known story about 2 F-15s that bounced a Eurofighter Typhoon that was out on a 'training' flight.

"IT might be over budget and years late but the Eurofighter Typhoon has shown that it can shake off America's best fighter plane and shoot it down.

A chance encounter over the Lake District between a Eurofighter trainer and two F-15 aircraft turned into a mock dogfight, with the British plane coming off best - much to the surprise of some in the RAF. The episode was hushed up for fear of causing US blushes.

For a project 10 years late and $8bn over budget, it is a welcome piece of good news.

The 'clash' took place last year over Windermere when the two-seater RAF Eurofighter was 'bounced' from behind by the two F-15E fighters.

The US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless 'Limey' for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down.

But much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails.

The British pilots themselves were almost as surprised at winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world."

I am probably biased, but as an old USAF vet I feel compelled to add some reality to this tale and point out that the F-15E Strike Eagle is a ground attack variant of the F-15 and as such is not at its best in ACM. In addition, even the old and reliable F-15C Eagle, the true ACM variant of the F-15, is soon to be obsolete in the USAF as it is rapidly being replaced with the F-22 Raptor. I would think a true test of the Eurofighter Typhoon would be a 1 vs 1 encounter with an F-22 Raptor, but then it would be very difficult to defeat what you can't find.

Mike

PS: BTW, the F-15C Eagle is the most successful air superiority fighter in the history of military aviation with 104 actual kills to 0 losses. Not too shabby for a fighter that first flew in 1972.

Post by **Weescotty** » 18 Aug 2006, 04:08

Oh don't get me wrong.
F-15 is without doubt the worlds premier 'previous generation' fighter aircraft.
Although I have always preferred the sleek lines of the Falcon myself.

Typhoon v Raptor would be real interesting.

BVR - would put money on the Raptor. (at least getting first shot in)

VR - hard to guess, Raptor vectoring v Typhoon extraordinary agility.
Probably come down to the pilot.

Main advantage the Typhoon has it is the only (I believe) aircraft that can do sustained high G turns while supersonic.

I'd hate to be in any aircraft and run into a combined F-22, F-23 and Typhoon force package.

vegasflyboy2004 · Post by **vegasflyboy2004** » 19 Aug 2006, 09:58

Having been lucky enough to visit the Red Flag building at Nellis, I can tell you that the F-15 can be very vunerable in a close-in fight with a smaller aircraft. I was TDY (temporary duty) to Nellis when I was stationed at Hill AFB, Utah. A few of us enlisted maintainers got invited to the Red Flag building to watch one of our missions on the big screen. We sent up 8 Block 40's loaded with LGB's, with a 4-ship of F-15C's providing support. Flying 'red air' was a 6-ship of Aggressor F-16's from the Aggressor Squadron at Nellis. Two of the Aggressors quickly swooped in, engaged the 4 F-15's, and had them all dead within 3 minutes. Then the rest of the Aggressors began to pick off the Hill F-16's one by one. You could hear the iritation in the voices of the F-15 pilots as they called in killed one at a time. Superior hardware can only give you so much of an advantage. Most of the edge will go to those with superior tactics and experience.

Don H · Post by **Don H** » 19 Aug 2006, 14:45

vegasflyboy2004 wrote:Having been lucky enough to visit the Red Flag building at Nellis, I can tell you that the F-15 can be very vunerable in a close-in fight with a smaller aircraft. I was TDY (temporary duty) to Nellis when I was stationed at Hill AFB, Utah. A few of us enlisted maintainers got invited to the Red Flag building to watch one of our missions on the big screen. We sent up 8 Block 40's loaded with LGB's, with a 4-ship of F-15C's providing support. Flying 'red air' was a 6-ship of Aggressor F-16's from the Aggressor Squadron at Nellis. Two of the Aggressors quickly swooped in, engaged the 4 F-15's, and had them all dead within 3 minutes. Then the rest of the Aggressors began to pick off the Hill F-16's one by one. You could hear the iritation in the voices of the F-15 pilots as they called in killed one at a time. Superior hardware can only give you so much of an advantage. Most of the edge will go to those with superior tactics and experience.

It always amazed me that the USAF picked the F-15 as the primary fighter, over the F-16, and made the F-16 into the truck. It was very obvious, from the start, that the F-16 was the better turn and burn bird, while the F-15 could carry more weight, farther and faster. McDonnell-Douglas must have lobbied harder with more money, is all I can figure.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 23 Aug 2006, 21:31

Procurement is not always a case of lobbying and more money. The infamous F-16 Buy created a hubbub over that and you can still find those who didn't like the way it went down. I was lucky enough to have the General in Charge of the F-15 SPO come and brief at Squadron Officer School as the airplane developed. It was optimized to be an air-to-air killer. The F-16 was optimized to be a "lightweight fighter" so the specs were entirely different. Historically, the Life of an Aircraft is extended by variations-Air-to-ground for the F-16 does that. Other considerations are maintenance vs flying hours, two engine vs single engine survivability, engagement envelopes(performance) and so-forth. The Documents supporting procurement decisions usually fill many rooms. There aren't any simple "why" answers.

MikeyW · Post by **MikeyW** » 24 Aug 2006, 16:56

A few (well, more than a few) years ago I was a flight test engineer at the 4950th out at Wright-Patt, and I went up to Range Control and watched some F-15s from the Georgia Air Guard (I think they fly tankers now) and some A-7s from Springfield (now F-16s) in a 2v2. The F-15s were defending a town, while the A-7s were supposed to evade the F-15s and bomb the town. The A-7s went in, successfully dropped their bombs, and then shot down both F-15s before the eagles could even find them on radar. Then, they did it again. It was truly sad, because the eagle drivers were really tumbleweeds thoughout the whole engagement. What a waste of JP-4. Then they recovered at Wright-Patt and sauntered into the O Club like they owned the place. I bumped into them and told them I watched their work at the range that day, and they got real quiet.

- "Typhoon v Raptor would be real interesting." - From what I've heard, maybe. In most of their mock fights with F-15s, I heard that they usually send 6 eagles against one raptor, and even then, it's over pretty quick. The eagle drivers say they"go up, get gas, go fight, die. Get more gas, go fight, die. All day long". I don't see how a plane can be that good, though, so there could be some embellishment...

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 24 Aug 2006, 17:29

It is always hard to come to reliable conclusions when you try to compare airplanes. The proponents of each will usually be talking from memory or what they have read (me included). Sometimes emotion or just preference enters into the discussion and that really doesn't prove anything. I recall reading that the F-15 had an air-to-air kill ratio of 140:0 (but I forgot where I read it). I don't know where to go to see that again.
I always chuckle because my fighter friends had their own nicknames for the birds. F-15 was "tennis court", F-16 was "Electric Jet" and the standard joke was neither one would impress anyone but a Warthog driver. Not true of course, Just Bar talk. The reason it is hard to discuss airplanes on paper or on bulletin boards is you can't use your hands.

drmweaver2 · Post by **drmweaver2** » 08 Oct 2006, 01:40

At the risk of resurrecting a dead thread...

Something to consider with respect to the original post in this thread, the F-5 was aging when the F-15 and F-16 were foisted off on the USAF. The manufacutrer's successor for the F-5 was the ill-fated F-20 Tigershark which went up against the F-16 in a procurement battle as the F-15 had already been blessed as a desired aircraft by the powers that be - while leaving a hole/desire for an inexpensive, high performance aircraft we could use ANDexport to foreign countries.

If I remember correctly, THAT is a real story. The F-20 won every single head to head comparison against the F-16 but politics entered the procurement process as it always does. The F-20(edited a typo) had avionics which outperformed everything the prototype F-16 AND F-15 had combined. What it didn't have was the ability to eventually be turned into a ground attack pig.... but that wasn't supposed to be a consideration at the time. With the economical maintenance history of the F-5, the Tigershark was projected to cost less than 1/3 of the maintenance costs for the F-16 and far less than those of the F-15. Small, hard to spot, manuervable, at the time a leading avionics technology platform AND possibly the most economical fighter operating costs-wise... and the USAF, in all its infinite ignorance, decided to go with the F-16.

Two little known/not often talked about incidents involved F-20 v F-15 simulated dogfights using the F-20 prototype. 5 out of 5 times the Eagle was "shot down" without a sweat when the fight was begun at 20 miles or less. At longer distances, the Eagle simply locked the 'shark up with the radar and killed it with the big-honking missile it carried. The 'sharks' missiles didn't have the range to play that game - but Northrop said that could be "remedied" pretty quickly, though the USAF had never specified a longer range missile capability in its initial procurement request.

As you can see, I am a bit biased and sour about it. I knew one of the F-20(edited a typo) test pilots and he couldn't believe that this single competition killed and/or basically led to the death of the Norththrop Corporation as an independent aircraft corporation (As Northrop Grumman, it's not the same company by a long shot.). When the USAF didn't buy the Tigershark, no foreign country would buy them either though many were offered sweet deals.

Btw, Chuck Yeager, who was involved with the Tigershark's flight test program, loved the 'shark. He rated it very highly whenever asked about it.

Personally, I think of the Tigershark as the Super Hornet of its day and wonder how far it could have been developed given the attention that the F-15's, 16's and 18's have been.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 10 Oct 2006, 14:17

I think you make a point by example.

There are two different perspectives, the aircrew and company and the procurement process and specifications.

The aircrew focus is more "gee-whiz" it flies fast, it is fun to fly, etc.

The procurement focus to to meet specific objectives. General Bellis brought a bit of both to the F-15. I got to see his annual briefing over several years of development. You have to match the gee-whiz up with the spec objectives to get a winner.

I was also involved when the SR-71 was shut down. There were lots of 'practical reasons' for shutdown. The Pilots of course didn't see all of those so they complained that the closure of the program was all wrong.
In fact a simple thing like a single manufacturer of hydraulic fluid and their cancelling out of a production contract was a major thing. Engines were also becoming a problem. In addition, the capabilities of the intelligence gathering systems were being superceeded. It certainly was a capable airplane-but it outlived its usefulness and cost effectiveness. Still some would argue from an emotional aspect that it shouldn't have been closed down.

Having sat through many, many, development program reviews. I really don't think the Air Force is naive in it's decisions. If you haven't been there it is difficult to understand. The money pot is not bottomless, and policy and objectives drive force structuce. Those and many other factors are the drivers behind decisions to develop, buy, or close programs.

drmweaver2 · Post by **drmweaver2** » 10 Oct 2006, 18:37

I guess somewhat lost in my "diatribe" above was the fact that the F-20 was significantly ahead of the F-16 technologically at the time. Things now considered "normal" in the F-16 were first seen in the F-20... the HUD, the level of pilot-vehicle integration, etc. Those aren't just "pilot-oriented" things in terms of desirability --- as seen by the fact that they were incorporated into subsequent/production versions of the F-16.

Ah well. I'd say water under the bridge, but Katrina proved water "over the bridge" was dangerous also.

Post by **VulcanDriver** » 10 Oct 2006, 21:14

drmweaver2 wrote:I guess somewhat lost in my "diatribe" above was the fact that the F-20 was significantly ahead of the F-16 technologically at the time. Things now considered "normal" in the F-16 were first seen in the F-20... the HUD,

Actually the HUD was first used in the TSR2 in 1964. The TSR2 was a British attack aircraft that was cancelled. It was extremely advanced. For the history of this mighty aircraft see here:

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk ... story.html

John