Condora
Airman 1st Class
Only noticed: the F-16 is out?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The same question was asked during the late 50s. It will depend where and when. After military planners thought that air to air combat was obsolete there have been hundreds if not thousands of air to air engagements. From Vietnam to the Middle East. Today the potential for two countries to be engaged in air to air combat is just as high as it was in pre WW2, the only difference is you wont have hundreds of aircraft in the air all at once slugging it out.
Not really. During those "aggressor games" scenarios were set up to place the F-15 and F-5 in close quarters, something that would not happen in the real world. The f-15 would track and destroy its target miles out without even committing to combat maneuvers.For instance, I'm not aware of the kill statistics, but the old and plain F-5 is supposed to once have managed to surprise the all-mighty F-15 when playing the aggressor role. On a bang-per-bucks basis, that leaves the F-15 looking bad.
Not really. During those "aggressor games" scenarios were set up to place the F-15 and F-5 in close quarters, something that would not happen in the real world. The f-15 would track and destroy its target miles out without even committing to combat maneuvers.
The F-5 aggressors were used to teach fighter pilots to hone their skills when placed in a disadvantage.
The F-15 has the ultimate kill loss record in combat history.
That was allegedly done in late 1970s with "Fuzzbuster" radar detectors used in automobiles. I believe that was just a myth.I have to rely on earsay for this one, but what I heard was that on "track and destroy" missions using radar, the f-5 pilots got fed up on being sitting ducks, and smuggled some stuff (some electronic devices, such as radar detection), and managed to surprise the F-15 pilots, who suddenly saw their targets well aware of their presence, and able to get close and personal...
But top brass love their multi-role beasts; hence it's the F/A-22
That was allegedly done in late 1970s with "Fuzzbuster" radar detectors used in automobiles. I believe that was just a myth.
Even so the F-15 can only be defeated by an F-5 if the F-15 driver allows him or herslef to do so.
It was reported (anecdotally) by Roy Braybrook in one issue of Air International toward the end (maybe mid) 70s. Among other sources, I think one of Mike Spick's books also tells the story.
Apparently it was head-on attack and the F-5s launched their 'winders at the earliest opportunity, the Eagles had to keep coming so as to illuminate the F-5s for the Sparrows to keep lock.
It wasn't so much a "defeat" for the '15s as a one for one killl, the 'winders (simulated) struck home shortly after the F-5s died from Sparrow hits.
But on a cost for cost basis it was a definite win for the smaller fighter.
I thought the Sparrow was short range and the Sparrow medium or long range?
Page 159Whatever they called it, the effect was devastating to the side that did not have Limas. One engagement during the test vividly pointed out the differences. Four Eagles fought four Red Air F–5s equipped with Limas. As the battle neared its conclusion, all of the combatants had "died," except for one Eagle and a single F–5. The Eagle was a few miles behind the F–5 and launched a Sparrow. Simultaneously, the F–5, which knew the Eagle's position, came around in a very tight turn, saw the Eagle, and launched a Lima at it. A split second later, the ACMI put a coffin around the F–5, signaling that it was killed from the
Sparrow. However, the Lima, already unleashed, continued to streak head-on at the F–15 and killed it as well. The AIM-ACE pilots saved the ACMI tape to show visitors the impact the Lima had in a fight. They called the mission "The Towering Inferno" because all eight of the players died—the last one the victim of a dead man.
Page 161The Red Force pilots did not have a real RWR in their cockpits to warn them when the Blue Force radars were tracking them. The only warning they got of a lock on was through an artificial system in the ACMI that was not always accurate, and sometimes the information was slow to be passed to them. Since the Air Force was not interested in modifying the F–5s, one of the pilots went to the local Radio Shack and bought a battery-powered radar detector of the type speeders use to protect themselves from radar speed traps. He found that the F–15 radar would trigger the device if he carried it mounted inside his F–5 cockpit. When the Blue Forces discovered that the Reds were using the devices, they yelled "Foul!" loud and clear. When umpires refused to force Red Air to discontinue using the fuzz-busters, the Blue team worked on their own tactics to find ways to counter the new equipment."10
Errrr, not until someone identifies the pilots. Martin Caidin wrote a lot of stuff like that as well. Again, show me who the pilots were and I would totally believe this story.Looks like it's possibly a conflation of two separate stories.
I went back and read that report - from the USAF. It talks about a Nellis but names no squadron, pilots or any other information to truly validate this. And that was reading pages 158 - 161.
My guess for the ambiguity of the people and places is because of this totally illegal installation. Even in the USAF of the late 1970s, you just didn't "bolt on" non approved equipment without engineering approval.
Still, great find on that report, it does make this more believable.
Seconded, his article was always the first thing I read when I got my copy of Air International.I liked reading Roy Braybrook's articles
I think he is (he was listed as a member of The Hawker Association in 2008 ), one of my "regrets" is that I missed meeting him by about fifteen minutes at the last Redhill HeliTech I went to (that was the one I got free tickets and the offer of trade stand space for!don't know if he's still alive, and writing
I liked his story about the fictional missile missile they cooked up and logged for fun.On simple "radio shack style" solutions, I remember him talking about the early AAM to give an example:
the british were developing a missile - don't remember the name -, and to keep it stable, included gyros, and a lot of expensive and heavy tech so that control surfaces could correct the problem. It was a nightmare to to put it all to work properly, and they never managed to get rid of some problems.