The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

[Condora]

Only noticed: the F-16 is out?

 

[Bluehawk]

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.

Just imagine the gun camera footage from the next wave of air to air...

 

[plan_D]

Don't start me on the Lightning; despite my love of it - in my opinion it's the best interceptor of it's day; and it was well ahead of it's time. And for nostalgia it'd be my choice for 1,2,3,4 and 5th places...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

 

[Dark Matter]

Actually I like the F-5 and the F-35. 8)

 

[Condora]

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.

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...

As you have more contacts than I do, perhaps you may get more info on this, I only have some story from a british engeneer, and would loe to know more.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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...

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.

 

[Condora]

Trouble with "armchair debates", is that very seldom one gets to have actually BEEN there on ALL ocasions, to check all the facts.

I guess even then, there would be controversy - the CF-104 being mistaken for harriers illustrates this point perfectly.

 

[Waynos]

But top brass love their multi-role beasts; hence it's the F/A-22

No its not. They did briefly use that designation, but its been the F-22 again for the past couple of years now.

 

[MrCreak]

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.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I have to go with the F-15 as well - the one plane I always wanted to drive.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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'd like to see the story verified by the pilots who were there rather than aviation writers.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I thought the Sparrow was short range and the Sparrow medium or long range?

 

[MrCreak]

I thought the Sparrow was short range and the Sparrow medium or long range?

You mean Sidewinder short range and Sparrow medium?
Yes.
But the 'winder is IR homing whereas the Sparrow requires that the target be lit up by the launching fighter's own radar, so the 15s had to keep going forwards towards the incoming 'winders.
By the time the Sparrows had impacted, the 'winders were locked on to the F-15s and homed in on the heat autonomously.

Looks like it's possibly a conflation of two separate stories.

Whatever 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 159

and

The 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

Page 161
SIERRA HOTEL
FLYING AIR FORCE FIGHTERS IN THE DECADE AFTER VIETNAM
C. R. ANDEREGG
Air Force History and Museums Program
United States Air Force
Washington, D.C. 2001

PDF available here.

 

[vikingBerserker]

A muli-million dollar aircraft system defeated by Radio Shack ........


Sometimes it's the simple solutions........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Looks like it's possibly a conflation of two separate stories.

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.

EDIT

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.

 

[MrCreak]

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.

Digging a bit further (Thornborough also mentions essentially the same story in Modern Air Combat) it was during the AIMVAL/ ACEVAL tests and the "Red" side was actually the Aggressors.
Unfortunately I can't find any AIMVAL/ ACEVAL reports (other than documents referencing those reports) on the net.
But I'll keep looking, should make for interesting reading if I ever find them

 

[plan_D]

If the U.S. have re-designated it to F-22, again, it's only to please the pilots - who prefer to think they're solely fighter pilots. Probably the same people who wanted it the F-117.

 

[Condora]

I liked reading Roy Braybrook's articles - don't know if he's still alive, and writing -, he had a refreshing way of describing things, that always reminded me of Asimov.
He had been and aeronautical ingeneer before retiring to write, and much of what he talked about had either been witnessed by him or first-hand info.

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.

He said the americans had used a simple solution: small holes and the air pressure differences would actuate on stabilizing surfaces.

The british missile, I forget the name, the american was named Sidewinder.

 

[MrCreak]

I liked reading Roy Braybrook's articles

Seconded, his article was always the first thing I read when I got my copy of Air International.

don't know if he's still alive, and writing

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! )

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.

I liked his story about the fictional missile missile they cooked up and logged for fun.
And then put noses further out of joint when a visiting American said that the 'winder had closer miss distances than their "project" - the reply was "Oh , we thought everybody measured miss distances in inches..."