The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

[FLYBOYJ]

The Difference between Korea and Vietnam.
Before the Russians pulled out The Us was Lucky to have a 1.5 to 1 Kill Ratio Mig Vs Sabre
The Russians Mig's shot down our bombers, prop fighters, other Jet fighters (Meteor, F80, F84, Navy).

Dan, once again you're talking from your anal orifice - please post some credible evidence to back up your sizable fecal matter.

So here's a dose of reality:

The US always maintained between a 10:1 to 14:1 kill ratio against the MiG-15 over Korea. When Soviet pilots were factored in we see between a 2:1 to 3:1 depending who you want to believe. The Soviets claimed something like 500 F-80s shot down when in reality there were never more than about 180 F-80s in country at one time. The Soviet pilots had higher motive to over claim - they received money for every confirmed kill and if they didn't perform they faced the wrath of a Stalin regime when they returned home.

"The Sabre's combat record in Korea was, by any standards, impressive. Of the 900 aerial victories claimed by USAF pilots during the war, 792 were MiG-15s shot down by Sabres. The MiGs in their turn managed to knock down only 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor.

Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories. The Soviets claimed to have shot down more than 650 Sabres, while USAF records show 224 F-86s lost to all causes, including non-combat"

Sabre vs MiG - Korean War air combat adversaries

 

[michael rauls]

Dan, once again you're talking from your anal orifice - please post some credible evidence to back up your sizable fecal matter.

So here's a dose of reality:

The US always maintained between a 10:1 to 14:1 kill ratio against the MiG-15 over Korea. When Soviet pilots were factored in we see between a 2:1 to 3:1 depending who you want to believe. The Soviets claimed something like 500 F-80s shot down when in reality there were never more than about 180 F-80s in country at one time. The Soviet pilots had higher motive to over claim - they received money for every confirmed kill and if they didn't perform they faced the wrath of a Stalin regime when they returned home.

"The Sabre's combat record in Korea was, by any standards, impressive. Of the 900 aerial victories claimed by USAF pilots during the war, 792 were MiG-15s shot down by Sabres. The MiGs in their turn managed to knock down only 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor.

Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories. The Soviets claimed to have shot down more than 650 Sabres, while USAF records show 224 F-86s lost to all causes, including non-combat"

Sabre vs MiG - Korean War air combat adversaries

This is an oportunity to ask about something I have wondered about. If I recall(don't know to much about Korean war era aircraft so bear with me here) the Mig 15 looks better on paper than the Saber i.e. the Mig was faster, had a higher ceiling, and I think a better rate of climb. At least so I have read. Yet I have always read the Saber held a large kill/ loss advantage over the Mig.
So I have wondered what the factors were that gave the Saber such an advantage in actual combat. I'm guessing better trained pilots and perhaps better handling characteristics but don't really know. Would like your opinion on this. Thanks.

 

[BiffF15]

F-15 bar none. 104 to ZERO kill ratio, has sat alert from the Middle East, to mainland Europe, USA, AK and the Far East. Until the F22 was the only US fighter allowed to sit alert at Keflavik in the winter months. It also sat as king of the hill from early 70's until the F22 came out over 30 years later. The Raptor has some big shoes to fill for 3+ decades before it completely dethrones the Eagle.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Peter Gunn]

Mike,

The Sabre was a very good gun platform, had a radar ranging gunsight and was an all around excellent aircraft. It was said that if you wanted frost inside on a hot day, the environmental system would give you that and add snow for good measure. If it was 20 below outside you could turn the cockpit into a sauna, not so the MiG. She (F-86) was tough, fast and maneuverable with excellent pilots most of the time. Somewhere at the house I have a metric sh!t ton of material on the F-86, not drgondog levels of info but pretty good.

Opinions of pilots sort of varied but remember they took all marques into combat starting with original purchase block F-86A's, then E's and F's. The above was pretty much true for all marques but performance differed greatly, generally it seems the Sabre was more maneuverable and a good climber, I'd have to check but I think it could out climb the MiG but at a shallower angle. Dive goes to the F-86 and top speed is about a wash, depends on which model of Sabre. All in all they were pretty closely matched most of the time, again, depended on the pilot quite a bit and which marque of the F-86 he was flying.

All of that was from my washed up memory so don't take it as Gospel.

 

[Peter Gunn]

F-15 bar none. 104 to ZERO kill ratio, has sat alert from the Middle East, to mainland Europe, USA, AK and the Far East. Until the F22 was the only US fighter allowed to sit alert at Keflavik in the winter months. It also sat as king of the hill from early 70's until the F22 came out over 30 years later. The Raptor has some big shoes to fill for 3+ decades before it completely dethrones the Eagle.

Cheers,
Biff

I dunno, methinks someone is a bit biased...

Next you'll be telling us tales of derring do with contrails...

 

[BiffF15]

I dunno, methinks someone is a bit biased...

Next you'll be telling us tales of derring do with contrails...

I am biased sir! But the facts don't lie either.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've worked on both the MiG-15 and F-86, even got to fly in a MiG-15 UTI. Over Korea the majority of the US pilots were better trained and used better tactics. When the Soviets were on scene they used the strengths of their aircraft combined with the tactical advantage of being able to fly a little higher and break off the engagement and run over the Yalu. The F-86 was built like a tank, the MiG-15 was built well but was way simpler. I do know in the MiG-15 you have no aileron authority when landing, especially about the time when you're over the numbers. The thing that's not spoken about is the ability of both aircraft to accelerate. I believe the MiG-15 could accelerate quicker than the earlier F-86 models, when the F-86E and F came along the MiG-15 bis was outclassed. Another situation that is often missed is the MiG-15 was not about to go super sonic so if a Saber driver forced a MiG-15 into a dive at altitude, it was not going to be able to escape.

Looking at some of these things along with tactics and pilot training is one of the reasons why the F-86 preformed so well over Korea despite what other people delusionally think!

 

[Elmas]

A Luftwaffe test pilot, wich I met at Decimomanni AFB, who flew over all post-war NATO planes from the F-86 to the Tornado, from the G-91 to the F-15, to my question: "What is the most beautiful aircraft you have ever been inside?" did not even let me finish the question and replied: "But the F-104, of course."

 

[Zipper730]

"The Sabre's combat record in Korea was, by any standards, impressive. Of the 900 aerial victories claimed by USAF pilots during the war, 792 were MiG-15s shot down by Sabres. The MiGs in their turn managed to knock down only 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor.

Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories.

379 aerial victories against MiG-15's, or against all aircraft types? I'm curious if there was any research as to

• Aerial Victories by Aircraft
• Losses by Aircraft

I'm curious because there were all sorts of aircraft that served in Korea, which involved the US, Australia, not sure about the UK or Canada and these included all sorts of aircraft including the F-51, F-80, F-82, F-84, F-86, F-94, F4U, F6F, F8F, F2H, F9F, Sea Fury, Meteor, AD-1, B-26, and others; there was the USSR--- I mean Korean Yak-9, La-9, MiG-9, and MiG-15

 

[FLYBOYJ]

379 aerial victories against MiG-15's, or against all aircraft types? I'm curious if there was any research as to

• Aerial Victories by Aircraft
• Losses by Aircraft

I'm curious because there were all sorts of aircraft that served in Korea, which involved the US, Australia, not sure about the UK or Canada and these included all sorts of aircraft including the F-51, F-80, F-82, F-84, F-86, F-94, F4U, F6F, F8F, F2H, F9F, Sea Fury, Meteor, AD-1, B-26, and others; there was the USSR--- I mean Korean Yak-9, La-9, MiG-9, and MiG-15

379 against MiG-15s, and that's a conservative estimate when comparing actual losses, again this depends which sources you use.

 

[Peter Gunn]

379 against MiG-15s, and that's a conservative estimate when comparing actual losses, again this depends which sources you use.

Agreed, although I tend to lean more towards ~700 MiGs shot down for 78 Sabres lost.

 

[Dan Fahey]

Dan, once again you're talking from your anal orifice - please post some credible evidence to back up your sizable fecal matter.

So here's a dose of reality:

The US always maintained between a 10:1 to 14:1 kill ratio against the MiG-15 over Korea. When Soviet pilots were factored in we see between a 2:1 to 3:1 depending who you want to believe. The Soviets claimed something like 500 F-80s shot down when in reality there were never more than about 180 F-80s in country at one time. The Soviet pilots had higher motive to over claim - they received money for every confirmed kill and if they didn't perform they faced the wrath of a Stalin regime when they returned home.

"The Sabre's combat record in Korea was, by any standards, impressive. Of the 900 aerial victories claimed by USAF pilots during the war, 792 were MiG-15s shot down by Sabres. The MiGs in their turn managed to knock down only 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor.

Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories. The Soviets claimed to have shot down more than 650 Sabres, while USAF records show 224 F-86s lost to all causes, including non-combat"

Sabre vs MiG - Korean War air combat adversaries

NOT against the RUSSIANS !
Against barely trained Chinese and North Koreans you are correct.
Against a well trained force the US will suffer major losses, PERIOD !!
That was my comment you conveniently ignored !

All through WW2 the Chinese suffered against the Japanese using US Airplanes.
US lead Chinese did fare better.

The reason China and North Korea lost so many planes.
They did not have a very large educated base to chose from.
Just like the Chinese during WW2, they had a poor education system.
Only the wealthy Chinese could send their kids to school.
Plus way too many lost their lies training !
Suspect that the Chinese and North Koreans had the same issue.

One of the most unsung successes in the US was the US Army/Navy Public Education system that was created.
Few could read and we needed trained workers engineer, build, measure and operate things.
The US Military trained many scientist, mechanics and engineers.
I know this well .... my Grandfather selected the Site for the Manhattan Project.
Side note, a key reason why Hot Rodding bloomed after WW2.

Vietnam had enough good pilots to take out out US aircraft.
Some were experienced Russian and Chinese and did a good job training the Vietnamese.
Suspect there were some former Japanese soldier integrated that never went back to Japan in that mix.

Mig 17s were shooting down our F4, F105, F100, and Prop AC and that is a fact.
Our Tactics were from lazy thinking, like no guns on the F4 Phantom.
In Vietnam we lost way too many aircraft from AAA, Rockets and Fighters.
Our tactics were predictable. Constantly, used the same identical paths to targets..

 

[FLYBOYJ]

NOT against the RUSSIANS !
Against barely trained Chinese and North Koreans you are correct.
Against a well trained force the US will suffer major losses, PERIOD !!
That was my comment you conveniently ignored !

No did not ignore at all - go back and READ what you read and then was was posted. I fully posted the numbers that pull the SOVIET pilots from the rest of the pool

All through WW2 the Chinese suffered against the Japanese using US Airplanes.
US lead Chinese did fare better.

I don't know what you're trying to say but ok...

The reason China and North Korea lost so many planes.
They did not have a very large educated base to chose from.
Just like the Chinese during WW2, they had a poor education system.
Only the wealthy Chinese could send their kids to school.
Plus way too many lost their lies training !
Suspect that the Chinese and North Koreans had the same issue.

If you say so -

One of the most unsung successes in the US was the US Army/Navy Public Education system that was created.
Few could read and we needed trained workers engineer, build, measure and operate things.
The US Military trained many scientist, mechanics and engineers.
I know this well .... my Grandfather selected the Site for the Manhattan Project.
Side note, a key reason why Hot Rodding bloomed after WW2.

OK, again a simplistic point of view, and it doesn't matter if your Grandfather was Robert Oppenheimer.

Vietnam had enough good pilots to take out out US aircraft.
Some were experienced Russian and Chinese and did a good job training the Vietnamese.
Suspect there were some former Japanese soldier integrated that never went back to Japan in that mix.

Errr, your last comment - PROOF or your own "theory."

Mig 17s were shooting down our F4, F105, F100, and Prop AC and that is a fact.
Our Tactics were from lazy thinking, like no guns on the F4 Phantom.
In Vietnam we lost way too many aircraft from AAA, Rockets and Fighters.
Our tactics were predictable. Constantly, used the same identical paths to targets..

You sound like an Osprey book. That was only one very simplistic point of view. There was a thing called "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" that caused many US aircraft to be lost. Tactics at the beginning of the war sucked. The gun comments are total bullshit. If the ROEs allowed for BVR combat, there was no need for guns and if you look at the air to air kill numbers less than 30% of all US air to air kills during Vietnam were with a gun. Since Vietnam I think over 90% of US air to air kills were with missiles. There were no ROEs that mandated visual engagement.

Dan again, back up some of your gibberish and read what you post!

 

[BiffF15]

NOT against the RUSSIANS !
Against barely trained Chinese and North Koreans you are correct.
Against a well trained force the US will suffer major losses, PERIOD !!
That was my comment you conveniently ignored !

All through WW2 the Chinese suffered against the Japanese using US Airplanes.
US lead Chinese did fare better.

The reason China and North Korea lost so many planes.
They did not have a very large educated base to chose from.
Just like the Chinese during WW2, they had a poor education system.
Only the wealthy Chinese could send their kids to school.
Plus way too many lost their lies training !
Suspect that the Chinese and North Koreans had the same issue.

One of the most unsung successes in the US was the US Army/Navy Public Education system that was created.
Few could read and we needed trained workers engineer, build, measure and operate things.
The US Military trained many scientist, mechanics and engineers.
I know this well .... my Grandfather selected the Site for the Manhattan Project.
Side note, a key reason why Hot Rodding bloomed after WW2.

Vietnam had enough good pilots to take out out US aircraft.
Some were experienced Russian and Chinese and did a good job training the Vietnamese.
Suspect there were some former Japanese soldier integrated that never went back to Japan in that mix.

Mig 17s were shooting down our F4, F105, F100, and Prop AC and that is a fact.
Our Tactics were from lazy thinking, like no guns on the F4 Phantom.
In Vietnam we lost way too many aircraft from AAA, Rockets and Fighters.
Our tactics were predictable. Constantly, used the same identical paths to targets..

Dan,

The White House dictated the targets, routes, times, etc. that were used. Then they gave those targets to the Swiss so they could pass them along to NVA. A TON of our (US) losses stemmed from those facts.

When allowed to operate without undue intrusion and control by the WH the results were infinitely better (Operation Bolo) or Linebacker II which took the cuffs off and brought the NVA back to the table.

An awful lot of those guys died for their country while being stabbed in the back by politicians (not leaders).

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Peter Gunn]

NOT against the RUSSIANS !
Against barely trained Chinese and North Koreans you are correct.
Against a well trained force the US will suffer major losses, PERIOD !!


*SNIP*

Bullsh!t

In Korea the Sabre had ~2:1 kill/loss ratio v. the MiG 15 flown by Soviet pilots.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Bullsh!t

In Korea the Sabre had ~2:1 kill/loss ratio v. the MiG 15 flown by Soviet pilots.

And IMO that's on a more conservative estimate. I think if you filter out the overclaims, factor in aircraft that were were reported lost due to "other causes" and consider soviet flown MiGs that crashed north of the Yalu, you could be looking between 3.1 to 4.1

 

[Peter Gunn]

And IMO that's on a more conservative estimate. I think if you filter out the overclaims, factor in aircraft that were were reported lost due to "other causes" and consider soviet flown MiGs that crashed north of the Yalu, you could be looking between 3.1 to 4.1

Agreed, I was tending to the conservative estimates I've looked over, but personally, yes, I believe about a 3.5:1 ratio in favor of the Sabre.

 

[michael rauls]

Since we got on the subject of Vietnam a few posts ago there is something that has bothered me for a long time and would like the opinions of.those more knowledgeable than myself on the subject. In short it seems to me that inspite of having one hand tied behind their backs our military had largely beaten the north by about 70. One of the things that evidence this is the failure of the norths Easter offensive in I believe 73. With just some US airsupport the south was able to repell the invasion rather quickly. Seems like with continued material and air support the south could have repelled any additional attacks and we would have a situation there today like we have in Korea i.e.South Vietnam a seperate and free
country.
However,after tying one hand behind the back of the military throughout the war the politicians then threw away all that our men had sacrificed for by first pulling air support and then material assistance to the South.
Really grates on me to this day when I hear some " reporter" on television almost gleefully state that, in his or her words " we lost the Vietnam war"
Such are my impressions anyway.

 

[special ed]

Not exactly one of the aircraft on the list, I like the Canadian Sabre Mk 6. It had the Orenda engine if my memory is right and the 6-3 wing and seem to remember an account from West German sources when the Sabre Mk6 was being replaced by the F-100. The comment from old hands was the hun was a step down and when challenged, a combat took place in which the Mk6 thrashed the 100. It was long ago, so details may be missing.

 

[eagledad]

Gentlemen

Some information on the performance and tactics of the F-86 versus the Mig 15.

FYI

Eagledad