F-5E vs F-14 and F-15 manuvrebility?

[SandMartin]

Guys, do u have any info about results red flag/top gun dogfights?

How offten aggressors F-5s "kills" newbee pilots in F-14 and F-15?

What plane turn faster?

In guns only who win? Did have F-5 any chance in 1vs1 duel?

 

Intresting any info about:

F-5 vs F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18

Edited June 5, 2016 by SandMartin

[hughlb]

There are lots of factors in answering your question, I've attached an image that appeared in another thread. I don't know the original source, or how accurate the information is, but it might give you some idea about the relative turn performance of some third and fourth generation fighter aircraft.

 

With the F-5, fundamentally, it lacks the thrust of the F-14, and even more so, the F-15, so don't expect to out-climb those aircraft. It's noted for its turn performance and agility, being such a light airframe, and it's really hard to spot, being so small. Subjectively, it seems to retain energy pretty well, like an F-16 (but obviously not THAT well!)

 

 

[ATTACH]141886[/ATTACH]

[Sweep]

The other thing to remember here is that the Aggressor and Adversary guys flying them don't always play as 'dirty' as they could.

 

IMO, the F-5 doesn't have a chance in 1v1, but it has a lot of potential in ACM...Its a tiny jet with a lot of bullets, as they say. And AIM-9Ps, but I try to forget about those...:megalol:

[Bushmanni]

F-15 was designed to outperform any existing aircraft in dogfight, including F-5 that was the best US dogfighter until F-15 came along. F-15 has better climbing capability, better sustained turn capability and also better instantaneous turn capability than F-5.

 

F-15 was the first modern fighter that was designed both for speed and turn capability while the planes before were one or the other. F-15 would beat most other fighters in all performance metrics and only lose in some categories against the rest (like in speed against MiG-25 or in STR against Sopwith Camel) but be overall much more superior that these planes wouldn't have a chance in a fight. Basically F-14 is pretty much the same and all the other fighters coming after F-14 and F-15 are similarly superior to earlier planes.

 

In a "fair" 1vs1 any 4th gen will beat F-5, MiG-21, etc. 3th gen without much trouble as they were designed to do. You can still lose to them if you don't know what you are doing though. Red Flag etc. are designed to teach the pilots how to fight in a real war where nobody fights fair and in that kind of setup it's more about tactics and pilot skill than performance of the plane.

[Hummingbird]

The F-14 was the F-5's worst enemy during red flag AFAIK, the F-5 doing worse against the cat than the F-15. The main reason(s) for this was the F-14's superior turning capability & acceleration after the merge, and before the merge it was the F-14's TCS allowing it to keep track of the small fighter.

 

Here's a good presentation by former top gun instructor Mike Rabens which touches the subject abit (from ~18:30 min):

[Youtube]Lc-k8FeGN-w

Edited June 5, 2016 by Hummingbird

[BlackLion213]

Guys, do u have any info about results red flag/top gun dogfights?

How offten aggressors F-5s "kills" newbee pilots in F-14 and F-15?

What plane turn faster?

In guns only who win? Did have F-5 any chance in 1vs1 duel?

 

Intresting any info about:

F-5 vs F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18

 

I've read plenty about the F-14A vs F-5E, here is a summary of what I've seen.

 

I don't have any hard numbers on exchange rates, except a mention my RADM Gillcrist in his book that F-14As were averaging 2.5 successes per sortie during ACEVAL/AIMVAL (that may not be exchange ratios), which was higher than the F-15. The official report from ACEVAL/AIMVAL was that US 4th gen fighters could count on a 2:1 exchange rate and this may be what was documented from the exercise.

 

On the topic of performance, the F-14A was reported as superior in every primary aerodynamic performance metric: STR, ITR, rate of climb, acceleration, and performance in the vertical.

This is a quote from Commander "Hawk" Smith during an informal briefing, he was the first commander of Top Gun who made a guest appearance during ACEVAL/AIMVAL flying the F-5E: "One-on-one, our F-5s can't win a neutral fight against a properly flown Block 90 (F-14A)."

 

However, the F-5E had 2 advantages in WVR (clearly BVR is not the F-5E's strength): roll rate and smallness. It could torment Tomcat crews by continuously changing directions, which the F-14 could not match (though there were tactical work arounds that crews had to learn - namely extending into the vertical). Also, the F-5 was really hard to see. This was it's biggest advantage by far - it could really sneak up on things. You can only counter maneuvers that you can see and F-5Es could come out of nowhere to kill an opponent.

 

Speaking to this part:

Guys, do u have any info about results red flag/top gun dogfights?

How offten aggressors F-5s "kills" newbee pilots in F-14 and F-15?

 

At least against F/A-18s and F-14s, F-5E's managed to "kill" their opponent all the time. Losing to a F-5E was a frequent event for new and even some experienced fleet pilots. The F-5E does not have any performance advantages, but it's close enough that 4th gen pilots need to properly employ their fighter to succeed. This means that the man still matters more than the machine. Plus, the F-5Es aren't generally engaging in a fair fight as aggressors. They often know their opponent's planned route and moments of opportunity. Thats the objective of training.

 

Plus, one of the other teaching points of the F-5E is that it doesn't look like a strong opponent on paper, but it can still win if you don't stay on top of things.

 

Also, against the upcoming LNS F-14A (more so than the F-14B), the F-5E has a chance because their are enough potential mistakes and employment errors that F-5Es could get the upper hand in a WVR fight. Once the Tomcat crews get experience and learn the aircraft, things will get much tougher for the F-5E. Still, the door will be open for F-5Es to win against many opponents (much like the MiG-21 vs FC3 fighters currently), but it will be tactics and exploiting the enemies weaknesses.

 

My 2 cents,

 

Nick

[mattebubben]

IMO, the F-5 doesn't have a chance in 1v1, but it has a lot of potential in ACM...Its a tiny jet with a lot of bullets, as they say. And AIM-9Ps, but I try to forget about those...:megalol:

 

Well The All aspect Aim-9Ps are actually quite capable.

(Aim-9P4 and Aim-9P5)

 

And that has been the standard missiles amongst many of the major users of the F-5E for over 30 years.

 

And i REALLY hope they will add either of those...

 

As it would really make no sense not to add them.

 

Since they are compatible they are very common for the F-5E across the world and it would in no way make the F-5E unbalanced etc...

Edited June 5, 2016 by mattebubben

[Darkbrotherhood7]

I've read plenty about the F-14A vs F-5E, here is a summary of what I've seen.

 

I don't have any hard numbers on exchange rates, except a mention my RADM Gillcrist in his book that F-14As were averaging 2.5 successes per sortie during ACEVAL/AIMVAL (that may not be exchange ratios), which was higher than the F-15. The official report from ACEVAL/AIMVAL was that US 4th gen fighters could count on a 2:1 exchange rate and this may be what was documented from the exercise.

 

On the topic of performance, the F-14A was reported as superior in every primary aerodynamic performance metric: STR, ITR, rate of climb, acceleration, and performance in the vertical.

This is a quote from Commander "Hawk" Smith during an informal briefing, he was the first commander of Top Gun who made a guest appearance during ACEVAL/AIMVAL flying the F-5E: "One-on-one, our F-5s can't win a neutral fight against a properly flown Block 90 (F-14A)."

 

However, the F-5E had 2 advantages in WVR (clearly BVR is not the F-5E's strength): roll rate and smallness. It could torment Tomcat crews by continuously changing directions, which the F-14 could not match (though there were tactical work arounds that crews had to learn - namely extending into the vertical). Also, the F-5 was really hard to see. This was it's biggest advantage by far - it could really sneak up on things. You can only counter maneuvers that you can see and F-5Es could come out of nowhere to kill an opponent.

 

Speaking to this part:

 

 

At least against F/A-18s and F-14s, F-5E's managed to "kill" their opponent all the time. Losing to a F-5E was a frequent event for new and even some experienced fleet pilots. The F-5E does not have any performance advantages, but it's close enough that 4th gen pilots need to properly employ their fighter to succeed. This means that the man still matters more than the machine. Plus, the F-5Es aren't generally engaging in a fair fight as aggressors. They often know their opponent's planned route and moments of opportunity. Thats the objective of training.

 

Plus, one of the other teaching points of the F-5E is that it doesn't look like a strong opponent on paper, but it can still win if you don't stay on top of things.

 

Also, against the upcoming LNS F-14A (more so than the F-14B), the F-5E has a chance because their are enough potential mistakes and employment errors that F-5Es could get the upper hand in a WVR fight. Once the Tomcat crews get experience and learn the aircraft, things will get much tougher for the F-5E. Still, the door will be open for F-5Es to win against many opponents (much like the MiG-21 vs FC3 fighters currently), but it will be tactics and exploiting the enemies weaknesses.

 

My 2 cents,

 

Nick

 

Very nice, Nick! :)

Edited June 5, 2016 by Darkbrotherhood7

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Well The All aspect Aim-9Ps are actually quite capable.

(Aim-9P4 and Aim-9P5)

 

And that has been the standard missiles amongst many of the major users of the F-5E for over 30 years.

 

And i REALLY hope they will add either of those...

 

As it would really make no sense not to add them.

 

Since they are compatible they are very common for the F-5E across the world and it would in no way make the F-5E unbalanced etc...

 

What is the AIM-9P range, Matt?

[mattebubben]

What is the AIM-9P range, Matt?

 

Not sure hard to find any good sources for range.

 

And do you mean Aim-9P in general or Aim-9P3 (Most likely the Aim-9P we have modeled ingame at least visually) or do you mean one of the all aspect variants?.

 

But in either case ive not been able to find any definate sources and those ive been able to find have stated different ranges.

 

Some gives it the same range as the Aim-9L/M and some gives the Aim-9P slightly shorter range.

 

And its also slightly less manuverable but all in all the all aspect variants should be pretty decent.

 

And they cant be all that bad seeing as they were even used by the USAF for many years in decent numbers.

 

(to complement the Aim-9L/M series and to be used when they did not need to carry the more expensive Aim-9L/Ms)

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Not sure hard to find any good sources for range.

 

And do you mean Aim-9P in general or Aim-9P3 (Most likely the Aim-9P we have modeled ingame at least visually) or do you mean one of the all aspect variants?.

 

But in either case ive not been able to find any definate sources and those ive been able to find have stated different ranges.

 

Some gives it the same range as the Aim-9L/M and some gives the Aim-9P slightly shorter range.

 

And its also slightly less manuverable but all in all the all aspect variants should be pretty decent.

 

And they cant be all that bad seeing as they were even used by the USAF for many years in decent numbers.

 

(to complement the Aim-9L/M series and to be used when they did not need to carry the more expensive Aim-9L/Ms)

 

Thanks, Matt.

I meant the all aspect variant.

 

So can we expect 8km or 10 km of range? And less flare avoidance than the AIM-9L(1+)/AIM-9M?

[mattebubben]

Thanks, Matt.

I meant the all aspect variant.

 

So can we expect 8km or 10 km of range? And less flare avoidance than the AIM-9L(1+)/AIM-9M?

 

The Flare avoidance Depends on the All aspect variant.

 

The Aim-9P4 had a seeker that was based on the Aim-9L

(slightly less advanced in order to be cheaper to produce require less maintenance and a longer shelf life but with pretty comparable performance)

 

with the Aim-9P5 seeker being an improved variant with similar

IRCM resistance as the Aim-9M.

 

the P4 and P5 (and the rear aspect P3) where all made at the same time and it was simply up to the user what capabilities they wanted and how much they were ready to pay as the prices varied significantly.

 

(The US also decided in the end what variants a nation were allowed to buy so a trusted nation like South Korea or Switzerland could pick any of the variants while a less trusted nation like a small state in Africa etc were often limited in what variant they were allowed to buy).

 

The range estimates ive seen for the Aim-9P range between 10-18km (and thats a pretty significant gap =P )

but i have no idea how correct those are.

 

But sadly they have not yet promised or stated there will be a All aspect Aim-9P as well as the standard Rear Aspect one.

 

But i will be very annoyed if They dont give it the All aspect one as well as its so common on F-5Es.

 

And especially since all other Fighters you will be facing have later weaponry (even the Mig-21 has a 1980s missile in the form of the R-60M and it can carry 6 missiles instead of the 2 of the F-5E)

 

So dont really see them having and excuse not to add it (since mission makers will always have the option to just use the older variants if they dont want the all aspect Aim-9 for a 1970s scenario)

Edited June 5, 2016 by mattebubben

[Darkbrotherhood7]

The Flare avoidance Depends on the All aspect variant.

 

The Aim-9P4 had a seeker that was based on the Aim-9L

(slightly less advanced in order to be cheaper to produce require less maintenance and a longer shelf life but with pretty comparable performance)

 

with the Aim-9P5 seeker being an improved variant with similar

IRCM resistance as the Aim-9M.

 

the P4 and P5 (and the rear aspect P3) where all made at the same time and it was simply up to the user what capabilities they wanted and how much they were ready to pay as the prices varied significantly.

 

(The US also decided in the end what variants a nation were allowed to buy so a trusted nation like South Korea or Switzerland could pick any of the variants while a less trusted nation like a small state in Africa etc were often limited in what variant they were allowed to buy).

 

The range estimates ive seen for the Aim-9P range between 10-18km (and thats a pretty significant gap =P )

but i have no idea how correct those are.

 

Thanks again, Matt. :)

Hopefully BST will give us the AIM-9P4/5 variants.

[Tirak]

Thanks again, Matt. :)

Hopefully BST will give us the AIM-9P4/5 variants.

 

Given that we're not even getting the upgrade kit to give them 4 missile capability, I doubt we'll get the P4/5.

[red_coreSix]

And do you mean Aim-9P in general or Aim-9P3 (Most likely the Aim-9P we have modeled ingame at least visually) or do you mean one of the all aspect variants?.

 

I don't think we actually have the P3, because that one had a smokeless-motor which the in-game AIM-9P obviously hasn't :)

The sim probably models the Basic AIM-9P or P1.

[mattebubben]

I don't think we actually have the P3, because that one had a smokeless-motor which the in-game AIM-9P obviously hasn't :)

The sim probably models the Basic AIM-9P or P1.

 

The Visual model is that of the P3 but dont know if the performance etc is mirrored to that or not.

 

And also none of that generations Aim-9 rocket engines are truly smokeless.

 

Reduced smoke yes but dont know if any can be said to be have been truly smokeless.

[SimFreak]

 

In a "fair" 1vs1 any 4th gen will beat F-5, MiG-21, etc. 3th gen without much trouble as they were designed to do. You can still lose to them if you don't know what you are doing though. Red Flag etc. are designed to teach the pilots how to fight in a real war where nobody fights fair and in that kind of setup it's more about tactics and pilot skill than performance of the plane.

 

Very much so this.

 

Plus aggressors are "simulating" flying potential adversary - using their tactics and flight envelop. They are trying to take apart plan to stimulate desired learning objective. 1 vs 1 fights is not for large force exercises and using them to decypher performance of particular aircraft is a waste of time.

[GGTharos]

The range estimates ive seen for the Aim-9P range between 10-18km (and thats a pretty significant gap =P )

but i have no idea how correct those are.

 

The far end of that is pretty accurate for a head-on shot at 30000' or higher. 10km isn't too far off for a medium altitude head-on shot ... all depending on the seeker working though.

[Rakuzard]

Plus aggressors are "simulating" flying potential adversary - using their tactics and flight envelop. They are trying to take apart plan to stimulate desired learning objective.

 

Plus the aggressors were trained to fly and adhere with the eastern doctrine for a better simulation of what the pilots might encounter in real combat.

 

EDIT: oh wait a moment... this is pretty much what you said with "potential adversary"... what an unneccessary post of mine :doh: note to self: don't post before the first coffee!

[MAD-MM]

Not easy question but have F5 higher energy recovery on the light airframe then the F-14 F-15?

Or is this comparable because F-14 F-15 have much more dry thrust then the F-5.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Energy recovery, I believe, is a function of thrust to weight ratio, of which the F-5 has less.

[Buzzles]

Long and short of it is that WVR between the F5 and F14/F15 in DCS is actually going to be quite fun and interesting :)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Not F-14/F-15 related, but an interesting read:

 

In the summer of 1976 a disassembled American F-5 fighter jet was delivered to our base at Aktubinsk. To be correct, it was F-5E - the latest variant with increased engines thrust. By the size it was smaller than MiG-21, had two engines installed side-by-side in the fuselage, a sharp swept-down nose and short tapered wings. The war in Vietnam had finished, and the United States Air Forces were leaving this long-suffering country, hastily abandoning several aircraft of this type on one of the airfields. One of them was handed over to the USSR together with its pilot manual. There were no technical descriptions, but our engineers figured everything out, assembled it to the last bolt and made it flyable, bringing not only the foreign hard pieces together, but also tons of electric wiring. A test brigade was formed to conduct special flight tests, and a program was written, which assumed 35-40 test flights. I was one of the test pilots, our lead was Nikolay Stogov.

 

After a proper training I was trusted to perform the first speed run on the runway and then a run with a 3-6 feet jump. These precautions had their reasons in our uncertainty, that all the systems had been assembled and connected correctly.

 

And finally, we were alone. The "Foreigner" hid within. From the manual I knew, that it had had no problems in operation whatsoever. But I also knew that every manufacturer had their own zest in the product. Unlike our fighters in production, the "Foreigner" had brakes on pedals, which we had on heavy aircraft only. The cockpit was not cluttered by various switches and circuit breakers unneeded in flight. They were all concentrated in a single horizontal "stock" away from the working area. I understood that F-5 was a way not the most modern plane and that it was inferior even to MiG-21, but, nonetheless, I liked the cockpit layout. I decided to make the run on the second runway, which was the longest one. "There is never too much runway ahead," I thought, taxiing to the runway. It was the winter of 1976-77. Of course, there was no reason to hide I was proud that the only aircraft of this type available in the USSR was trusted to me.

 

I turned on the extension of the nose strut - the electrohydraulic retractor engaged, and the nose of the aircraft started to "crawl" up. "How about that?" I shook my head surprised. "Couldn't you do without it on this little one?" As for me, not a common way to reduce your takeoff roll. In the USSR, only Myasischev used this on M-3 and M-4 - the heavy long-range bombers with a tandem gear layout, thus with very short nose struts.

 

"Alright," I thought, "we kneeled, so let's run. It is awkward to fool around this way." I increased thrust and released the brakes. The aircraft started to roll. It rolled evenly, reluctantly gaining speed. Aha! That's why they raise the nose strut! The engines are feeble, and the wing is too small. I lifted the nosewheel off the ground and held the airplane from the premature liftoff. Enough for this time. I powered back and lowered the nose. And then... what the heck? The entire nose started to shake and vibrate, then it started to wander left and right so violently, I thought it would just fall the hell off in a moment. Something was screeching and rumbling below. My first thought was about the nosewheel shimmy, but then I realized the nosewheel had been destroyed. I pulled the drag chute handle. "Not the brakes... Main wheels damage is the last thing we need: we don't have spares," the thoughts were rushing in my mind. Gradually reducing the speed, I stopped. I switched everything off, opened the canopy and impatiently jumped down onto the tarmac. I looked and I was puzzled: the wheel was intact. "That's strange! So what were you so unhappy with?" I looked at the "Foreigner" suspiciously. It turned out that he was unhappy with our runway condition: rough grooves and seams were so deep, and the surface of the concrete was decayed, so he just didn't stand it. One bolt was cut off, and the strut together with the wheel was turning around.

 

- "Nice! Ours don't do things like that," I gave his nose a pat and whispered: "Don't worry, we'll find a new bolt for you and you'll gallop around again!"

 

As I got to know the "Foreigner" I grew up in my respect to him both as to the flying machine and as to the fighter jet. Unapt to aggressive maneuvering when in "cruise" configuration (flaps and slats up), he would have changed when the pilot put it into the "maneuvering" configuration (flaps and slats down). Then from a heavy clodhopper he turned into a swallow. Checking out the capabilities of the optical sight, I enjoyed keeping the reticle on the target while attacking with a 6g pull, whereas on MiG-21 it would disappear from the view at 3g.

 

After determining the basic specification we decided to set up for a mock air-to-air combat with MiG-21bis. I would fight on my "native" MiG-21, and Nikolay Stogov - on F-5. The close air combat started head-on in equal positions. Every flight ended with the same result: MiG-21 lost, although he had much higher thrust-to-weight ratio. I laid myself out just to keep the initial position. I took the most out of the aircraft, took all he could give, but the targeting angle grew steadily and in a few minutes the "bandit" was on my tail. Only tactics could save me. What I was stricken by the most is that the result of the mock fights took not only the generals by surprise (one could explain this somehow), but also the military research departments of the Air Force and even the aviation engineers. They would review the data records for thousand times, ask the pilots, especially me. Frankly, I was somewhat confused as well, but when I tried the F-5, I realized that it was not an ordinary one.

 

So, what was happening in flight? At the speeds of 800 km/h (430 kts) and above the fight was on equal terms, nobody had explicit advantages, but the fighting was not literally maneuvering because of the large radii of the maneuvers. We would both stay at the equal maximum allowable g-loads. Whilst at the speeds below 750 km/h (400 kts) one couldn't sustain these g-loads even with the afterburner. And the lower the speed was the faster it decayed, thus lowering the maximum available g-load. It turned out that the aerodynamics was what won the day, not the thrust/weight ratio. But how was I to explain all this to the people above? They wouldn't have patted our backs for this. Then the MiG company representatives suggested:

 

- "Let's set MiG-23M against him."

 

- "But they cannot be compared to one another; they are from different generations." The chief of our research institute objected.

 

The chief of our institute, colonel general I. Gaidayenko had been a fighter-pilot during World War II and a wingman of the very P. Kutakov, who was the supreme commander of the Air Force at the time of our struggle with the F-5. The result of the test flights was supposed to be reported to Kutakov.

 

- "So what? We will kick his ass anyway!" 2nd lead engineer of MiG-23M spoke out, rubbing his hands in expectance of the revenge.

 

Well, the ass was kicked, for sure... but one of our own. The result was the same with the only exception that the agony lasted for 4-5 minutes. You have also to keep in mind that I had been considered a pilot capable of any stall and spin recovery and I had been permitted to break any angle of attack limitations. In the dogfight, I set the optimal wing sweep manually, but all in vain. The foreigner would slowly, but steadily, approach my tail. After these flights all calmed down for some time, all discussions ceased. The chief of the RI ordered to promptly compile a statement on the tests and directed me and Stogov to Moscow, to the Central Research Institution No. 30, which was involved in elaboration of the long-term problems of aviation advancement.

 

Paying a visit to one of its departments we asked, what they could tell us about the MiG-21 advantages over the F-5E.

 

- "Oh!" The military scientists immediately exclaimed. "With pleasure! There is a fray right now between Ethiopia and Somalia, and these very aircraft fight each other there. And we are busy preparing recommendations for the pilots on how to successfully fight the F-5 in aerial combat."

 

- "And what you've got?" I asked with an interest.

 

- "Take a look at the graph of the attack success probability. See? We beat him everywhere."

 

- "Indeed," I droned, looking at the so familiar graph in front of me and feeling somewhat hurt for the "Foreigner".

 

- "And what're the odds?" My friend asked, making a face of a village gull.

 

- "We've got much better thrust-to-weight ratio," the scientist replied in a voice of a mentor, who knew his worth.

 

- "Alright, then could you read this Statement and give us your final conclusion, please? And..."

 

- "And we'll go have a lunch," Nikolay suggested, "You know, on an errand it's like in defense: the meal is the ultimate thing."

 

This was the end of our work on the comparative evaluation of the "Foreigner" and our Soviet fighters. I don't know what kind of discussions were held "up there", but I know for sure, that the recommendations for the Ethiopian pilots were changed. Our "experts" suggested not to engage in a close dogfight, but to use the "hit-and-run" tactics instead. What about MiG-23, everyone preferred to forget about it. You bet! It had been supposed to fight even more advanced aircraft! Our Statement was classified as top secret and removed somewhere away from the eyes. The "Foreigner" was given to the aviation industry specialists with a strict clause: no flying, but to disassemble and study the structural features to use the knowledge in further projects. Some time passed, and the Su-25 close air support aircraft emerged. It had the wheel brakes on the rudder pedals, "maneuvering" wing configuration and a different approach to the cockpit layout. In the terms of the pilot workstation our engineers went even further, and nowadays the cockpit of MiG-29 can serve as an exemplar for similar foreign combat aircraft. The same can be said about the aerodynamics. The aerodynamic capabilities of Su-27 fighter are considered unexcelled so far. It appears that what is clear for one is a revelation for the other. I believe that similar situations arose in the USA as well, as they got our aircraft at times from MiG-21 to MiG-29. We had luck only once.

 

(Original here, translation by ilya1502, writing by Vladimir Kondaurov: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144200)

[Shack]

Tactics. What are aggressor pilot tactics during red flag? Thats wherein the answer lies. Trying to compare a second generation fighter like the F-5 to a fourth generation powerhouse like an F14 / F15 is not an even comparison. In my opinion, it's tactics training that makes all the difference.

 

Of course, that theory gets blown away when you start to look at 6th Generation fighters that blow F-15's out of the sky like a pigeon shoot due to their stealth BVR capability.

 

This video shows 1 F-22 take out 5 F-15s ( all flown by F-22 qualified pilots )

 

https://youtu.be/EQ7MwfcjCa0

Edited March 19, 2017 by Shack