IAF Su-30MKI defeaded UK F3 Tornados. Next the EF2000...

[Starlight]

Given that the F-15A would still out-detect and have the first shot with the APG-63, I don't see much of a problem for an F-15A taking on an R-77 equipped MiG-21 ;)

 

mmm I don't think... the -7E had a hard time guiding to vanilla Fishbeds over Viet-Nam. The -7F wasn't so much better... at least until version III. -7M was something better.

The R77 could have its problems, but I think it could easily outperform any Sparrow in the world... :)

The Sparrow until version -7F III and -7M was mainly used as a "formation breaker", the PK was really low.

 

You can't just shove a bunch of avionics and turn a little fighter into some sort of BVR machine which it was never intended to be and can never be. ;)

Even against an old F-15A ...

 

My opinion is just the opposite. The Britons seem to confirm my vision, since for training and testing purposes they used to add avionics to old aircraft. On the web you could find a lot of pictures of Buccaneers and Hunters fitted with Tornado avionics, for crew training and testing purposes. The Buccaneer with the nose of the Tornado is just great...

Anyway, IMHO the only reason why usually most countries don't update older aircraft is that:

- vintage ac usually don't have the performance of new ac

- rewiring an old aircraft often is as much expensive as building a new one

- building a new aircraft makes one AF look more up-to-date and cool

- building a new aircraft generates more occupation and know-how

 

As long as it's BVR anyway I don't see a difference between an F-15C and an F-5E Tiger fitted with a bulkier nose with an APG-63(v1) fitted inside.... provided that it has enough resources to make it work. The reason why this doesn't happen is just that the F-15 is just a better ac to do the job and has _definitely_ more room for avionics and anything else. It's overall a better aircraft.

[D-Scythe]

mmm I don't think... the -7E had a hard time guiding to vanilla Fishbeds over Viet-Nam. The -7F wasn't so much better... at least until version III. -7M was something better.

The R77 could have its problems, but I think it could easily outperform any Sparrow in the world... :)

The Sparrow until version -7F III and -7M was mainly used as a "formation breaker", the PK was really low.

 

That's where you're wrong. The AIM-7F was much more lethal than any SARH missile before it. The AIM-7M is just an improved -7F.

[Starlight]

back to the main topic, history of aviation is full of episodes where some aircraft pwn3d other ones in training, against the odds. Yet this doesn't prove anything...

USAF F-15s in RedFlag '83 were pwn3d by RAF Jaguars. Yet if you had to choose an aircraft to fly an air-to-air mission, would you pick the F-15 or the Jaguar? :)

[LaRata]

Only aircraft ever to shoot down an F-15 in actual combat is another F15.

 

 

No ... This was Not be real at present time. No matter the Radar they have many combat planes today bring then down . Some are :

 

1. EF2000.

2. Su-27SM/35/30.

3. Rafale.

 

Some old news... UK EF2000 vs US F-15E.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005

 

Luis"LaRata" Barreto

[nscode]

You should read again what SUBS17 is claiming.

[Guest IguanaKing]

No ... This was Not be real at present time. No matter the Radar they have many combat planes today bring then down . Some are :

 

1. EF2000.

2. Su-27SM/35/30.

3. Rafale.

 

Some old news... UK EF2000 vs US F-15E.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005

 

Luis"LaRata" Barreto

 

LaRata, Subs was talking about an ACTUAL shootdown, not a virtual one in a scripted exercise. One F-15J fired a live missile at another F-15J and ACTUALLY shot it down. :smilewink:

[Frostie]

I think the F-15 is becoming the Chuck Norris of Aviation.:D

'Only one man can beat up on Chuck Norris but he lives in a parallel universe and his name is... Chuck Norris!'

[GGTharos]

mmm I don't think... the -7E had a hard time guiding to vanilla Fishbeds over Viet-Nam. The -7F wasn't so much better... at least until version III. -7M was something better.

The R77 could have its problems, but I think it could easily outperform any Sparrow in the world... :)

The Sparrow until version -7F III and -7M was mainly used as a "formation breaker", the PK was really low.

 

You need to review your weapons ...

 

My opinion is just the opposite. The Britons seem to confirm my vision, since for training and testing purposes they used to add avionics to old aircraft.

 

Yep, and the USAF uses F-5's as agressors. And? This isn't for BVR training ;)

 

 

As long as it's BVR anyway I don't see a difference between an F-15C and an F-5E Tiger fitted with a bulkier nose with an APG-63(v1) fitted inside.... provided that it has enough resources to make it work. The reason why this doesn't happen is just that the F-15 is just a better ac to do the job and has _definitely_ more room for avionics and anything else. It's overall a better aircraft.

 

That's right, there wouldn't be a difference ... except that no one's going to modify an F-5 to cram an APG-63 into it as it would absically destroy the F-5's aerodynamics and weight distribution. I don't think you understand how /huge/ that radar set is ;)

[D-Scythe]

No ... This was Not be real at present time. No matter the Radar they have many combat planes today bring then down . Some are :

 

1. EF2000.

2. Su-27SM/35/30.

3. Rafale.

 

Some old news... UK EF2000 vs US F-15E.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005

 

Luis"LaRata" Barreto

 

Oh yeah, I remember the that exercise where the USAF sent a couple F-15Cs to fly against Su-27SM/35/30s.

[Starlight]

You need to review your weapons ...

 

Maybe, but read any pilot account over Viet-Nam and you'll find out how good the early Sparrows performed... ;)

 

The late -7F and -7M models are definitely different weapons. When I first did my example of the Mig-21 bison Vs an early F-15 I meant a really early F-15 with an early Sparrow... like those flying at Luke in 1974 with tailcode LA... really old, man ;)

 

Anyway, no Sparrow has the same PK of the Amraam. I don't know the PK of the R77 but in combat I'd feel safer flying with an R77 than an AIM-7M under my pylons.

 

 

Yep, and the USAF uses F-5's as agressors. And? This isn't for BVR training ;)

That's right, there wouldn't be a difference ... except that no one's going to modify an F-5 to cram an APG-63 into it as it would absically destroy the F-5's aerodynamics and weight distribution. I don't think you understand how /huge/ that radar set is ;)

 

maybe I picked the wrong example, the F-5 is one of the smallest ac in the world. Take a larger ac and you have the correct example... :)

 

the fact is that in theory any aircraft can be good at BVR with the right avionics.

 

But that doesn't deny the fact that if you put the right avionics in the right aircraft you stand more chances to win than in a vintage jet fitted with the same avionics.

You know 10 times better than me that fighting is not always just locking a target in a radar scope and pressing a button, quite often is also maneuvering into a good position, with the right speed and power. And that's where the good aircraft comes out.

But there are situations where the geometry of the engagement emphasizes avionics at their maximum, so an upgraded vintage ac could be a problem for a more modern ac. That's all... IMHO... no flame...

[GGTharos]

Maybe, but read any pilot account over Viet-Nam and you'll find out how good the early Sparrows performed... ;)

 

I know how they performed, and I know why - I forget when the monopulse seeker was installed, but with an F model you could contest a MiG-21 with R77's. This isn't like LO - the 21 won't even see you until you've set up the shot.

 

The late -7F and -7M models are definitely different weapons. When I first did my example of the Mig-21 bison Vs an early F-15 I meant a really early F-15 with an early Sparrow... like those flying at Luke in 1974 with tailcode LA... really old, man ;)

 

Again, shouldn't be much of a contest ... even if the weapon isn't quite as good, it gives you an advantage to 'see first shoot first'. For example, observe the E-E conflict.

 

Anyway, no Sparrow has the same PK of the Amraam.

 

I wouldn't make that claim. The Sparrow might be a bit less capable aerodynamically, maybe, but the seeker, save for being SARH, is pretty solid. 7M/MF is not a missile you want to be facing. You might have slightly lower PK than AMRAAM, but not by a huge lot.

 

I don't know the PK of the R77 but in combat I'd feel safer flying with an R77 than an AIM-7M under my pylons.

 

Like I said, depends on what you're facing ... it's a no brainer SARH v. ARH you want to be the guy who can turn away and run, but again, there can be mitigating factors :)

 

maybe I picked the wrong example, the F-5 is one of the smallest ac in the world. Take a larger ac and you have the correct example... :)

 

Say a Phantom :)

 

the fact is that in theory any aircraft can be good at BVR with the right avionics.

 

Your next statement is your saving grace on this one ;)

 

But that doesn't deny the fact that if you put the right avionics in the right aircraft you stand more chances to win than in a vintage jet fitted with the same avionics.

 

Sort of, there's more to it - consider that an F4 with an APG-63 would be pretty spiffy at BVR ... until it had to face off against something like an F-15E flying an A2A sortie. With that sort of engine thrust, the F-15 has moremeneuvering options. Let's not even go into an F-22 (sans stealth for this example)

 

You know 10 times better than me that fighting is not always just locking a target in a radar scope and pressing a button, quite often is also maneuvering into a good position, with the right speed and power. And that's where the good aircraft comes out.

 

Yes, I also know that there's a very good reason for interceptors being designed along 'See first - shoot first' guidelines. ;)

 

But there are situations where the geometry of the engagement emphasizes avionics at their maximum, so an upgraded vintage ac could be a problem for a more modern ac. That's all... IMHO... no flame...

 

 

Yep, it -might- be a challenge, might be. But don't understatimate that fighter class plays an overall role in this.

[ViperEagle]

No ... This was Not be real at present time. No matter the Radar they have many combat planes today bring then down . Some are :

 

1. EF2000.

2. Su-27SM/35/30.

3. Rafale.

 

Some old news... UK EF2000 vs US F-15E.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005

 

Luis"LaRata" Barreto

 

Ok..so the Typhoon was able to "best" a:

Overweight

Under-powered

Dedicated Ground Attack aircraft?

 

Strip all the CFT's, bombs and LANTIRNS, ATFLIR, LITENING and SNIPER pods off of a F-15E, take out the second seat, and leave the pilot alone in a F-15E with P229's for engines, and throw a few Sidewinders and Amraams, then it might be a little more fair, because basically that Typhoon was clubbing baby seals. Even then, the F-15C and F-15E are more different than that. So you're taking a Built-as-Ground Attack F-15E vs. a Fighter/Interceptor Typhoon.

 

The F-15 has never faced the SU-27, or the SU-35 in simulated combat. The only time the F-15 faced the SU-30 family was in DACT at Cope India I, and even then it's arms were not tied, they were handcuffed behind it's back.

 

The fact is, and remains, the only aircraft to actually shoot down an F-15..was an F-15. Even then, that doesnt count because it was an accidental Blue Vs. Blue kill in the JASDF!

[LaRata]

You should read again what SUBS17 is claiming.

 

Yes ... I miss the point

[D-Scythe]

Yes ... I miss the pint

 

Not only that, but if you're going to go as far as to claim the F-15C has already done DACT with Su-27SM/35s and got spanked, you might as well claim that Darth Vader sent a couple TIE fighters and interceptors to USAF Red Flag.

 

Oh BTW, the TIEs beat the F-15. Turns out blaster fire is superior to AMRAAM.

[Pilotasso]

That's where you're wrong. The AIM-7F was much more lethal than any SARH missile before it. The AIM-7M is just an improved -7F.

 

The biggest improvement to the M was solid state electronics wich made them much more reliable. I wouldnt call the F THAT lethal. Every sparrow had serious limitations. The M had less of them but even then...

 

Theres a reason why my country chose not to have them. Our block 15's are Sparrow capable. Just didnt make much sense to operate 2 missiles (F models) in each aircraft when theres high chances of both of them miss and equaly high chances of ever having the opportunity to do so. ;)

 

We chose the 6 AIM-9's config untill the arrival of the AMRAAM. Mind that those planes also were prepared to be wired for the AMRAAM. (current plans are to skip it for the MLU instead, all the work is being donne in one go)

[ViperEagle]

the F-16 MLU is one hoooot Viper!

[SUBS17]

the F-16 MLU is one hoooot Viper!

 

It certainly is but the latest Block 60 would have to be the ultimate.:thumbup:

[Pilotasso]

For that price tag I would easely jump on the Eurofighter. Block 60 is sexy indeed but too expensive for a 3rd gen plane, even compared with the typhoon.

[SUBS17]

No ... This was Not be real at present time. No matter the Radar they have many combat planes today bring then down . Some are :

 

1. EF2000.

2. Su-27SM/35/30.

3. Rafale.

 

Some old news... UK EF2000 vs US F-15E.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005

 

Luis"LaRata" Barreto

 

Well check this out then:

The Knife Fight

 

By September 2001, the situation detoriated further, especially so after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, which made both the SyAAF and the IDF/AF extremely nervous. Exactly this provoked the so far heaviest incident in the recent history of Syrian-Israeli aerial clashes.

 

On 14 September 2001, an IDF/AF Boeing 707, equipped for SIGINT-reconnaissance, was on a mission along the Lebanese and Syrian coast, collecting Syrian defense informations, monitoring foremost telecommunications and radar tags in the Tarabulus (Tripolis) and Hamidiyali areas. The plane was underway at 520 knots and 30.000ft, and escorted by two F-15Cs, at least one of which carried the newest Python Mk.IV air-to-air missiles.

 

The IDF/AF flew similar missions in the area at least twice a week since quite some times, and – as usually – the SyAAF scrambled two interceptors to shadow the “ferret”: the Syrians would always monitor the operations of Israeli reconnaissance aircraft, sending either MiG-23s from Abu ad-Duhor AB, or – less often – MiG-29s from Tsaykal, forward deployed at al-Ladhiqiyah, would get the honor to fly such missions over the Mediterranean Sea. So far, the Syrians have always taken care to stay at least some 20 kilometers away from Israeli planes, and never showed any interest in attacking the Israelis.

 

But, on this day, at 0914hrs, the two MiG-29s sent to shadow the Boeing 707 suddenly turned towards the Israeli aircraft and increased their speed. For the pilots of the two Israeli F-15s in escort this was not only surprising, but also an obviously aggressive maneuver. Due to the short range, there was no time to ask questions: the MiGs turned towards the Israeli planes in aggressive manner, and could open fire any moment.

 

The leader of the F-15-pair ordered the Boeing to instantly distance from the area and engage ECM systems, and then called his ground control for help and reinforcements (as a result of this call, six more F-15s and six F-16s were scrambled, along a single Boeing 707 tanker). Moment later, he warned the Syrian MiG-29 pilots on the international distress frequency to change their course. As the MiGs failed to response, the Eagles moved into attack.

 

One of the F-15s attacked the lead Syrian MiG-29 from above, closing directly out of the rising sun, and launching a single Python Mk.IV from an off-boresight angle of 40 degrees. The missile guided properly and hit the MiG above the left wing, immediately setting it afire.

The other MiG-29 banked hard right, apparently heading back to Syria, but it was too late, as the second F-15 was already too close: the pilot launched a single AIM-9M Sidewinder from a range of only 500 meters. The missile slammed into the target, crashing it into the sea.

 

Both Syrian pilots, Maj. Arshad Midhat Mubarak, and Capt. Ahmad al-Khatab, ejected safely and were recovered by Syrian ships. The names of the involved Israeli F-15-pilots remain unknown.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_437.shtml

 

The latest F-15 action where actual missiles were fired.

[D-Scythe]

The biggest improvement to the M was solid state electronics wich made them much more reliable. I wouldnt call the F THAT lethal. Every sparrow had serious limitations. The M had less of them but even then...

 

Pretty sure the AIM-7F was the one to introduce solid state electronics to the Sparrow family. Could be wrong though - it's been a while.

[Pilotasso]

Well check this out then:

The Knife Fight

 

By September 2001, the situation detoriated further, especially so after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, which made both the SyAAF and the IDF/AF extremely nervous. Exactly this provoked the so far heaviest incident in the recent history of Syrian-Israeli aerial clashes.

 

On 14 September 2001, an IDF/AF Boeing 707, equipped for SIGINT-reconnaissance, was on a mission along the Lebanese and Syrian coast, collecting Syrian defense informations, monitoring foremost telecommunications and radar tags in the Tarabulus (Tripolis) and Hamidiyali areas. The plane was underway at 520 knots and 30.000ft, and escorted by two F-15Cs, at least one of which carried the newest Python Mk.IV air-to-air missiles.

 

The IDF/AF flew similar missions in the area at least twice a week since quite some times, and – as usually – the SyAAF scrambled two interceptors to shadow the “ferret”: the Syrians would always monitor the operations of Israeli reconnaissance aircraft, sending either MiG-23s from Abu ad-Duhor AB, or – less often – MiG-29s from Tsaykal, forward deployed at al-Ladhiqiyah, would get the honor to fly such missions over the Mediterranean Sea. So far, the Syrians have always taken care to stay at least some 20 kilometers away from Israeli planes, and never showed any interest in attacking the Israelis.

 

But, on this day, at 0914hrs, the two MiG-29s sent to shadow the Boeing 707 suddenly turned towards the Israeli aircraft and increased their speed. For the pilots of the two Israeli F-15s in escort this was not only surprising, but also an obviously aggressive maneuver. Due to the short range, there was no time to ask questions: the MiGs turned towards the Israeli planes in aggressive manner, and could open fire any moment.

 

The leader of the F-15-pair ordered the Boeing to instantly distance from the area and engage ECM systems, and then called his ground control for help and reinforcements (as a result of this call, six more F-15s and six F-16s were scrambled, along a single Boeing 707 tanker). Moment later, he warned the Syrian MiG-29 pilots on the international distress frequency to change their course. As the MiGs failed to response, the Eagles moved into attack.

 

One of the F-15s attacked the lead Syrian MiG-29 from above, closing directly out of the rising sun, and launching a single Python Mk.IV from an off-boresight angle of 40 degrees. The missile guided properly and hit the MiG above the left wing, immediately setting it afire.

The other MiG-29 banked hard right, apparently heading back to Syria, but it was too late, as the second F-15 was already too close: the pilot launched a single AIM-9M Sidewinder from a range of only 500 meters. The missile slammed into the target, crashing it into the sea.

 

Both Syrian pilots, Maj. Arshad Midhat Mubarak, and Capt. Ahmad al-Khatab, ejected safely and were recovered by Syrian ships. The names of the involved Israeli F-15-pilots remain unknown.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_437.shtml

 

The latest F-15 action where actual missiles were fired.

I never heard such an event. It would egenerate alot of fuss but we didnt even get a wisper about it. I never trusted ACIG.

[Pilotasso]

Pretty sure the AIM-7F was the one to introduce solid state electronics to the Sparrow family. Could be wrong though - it's been a while.

 

Its me whos wrong, I stand corrected, I just checked. The mistake came from my feeling that the F sucked too much to be worth beeing loaded on the falcon. The M Introduced digital signal processor while the F was more prone to clutter.

[GGTharos]

I can't recall which one of these put on a monopulse seeker - the conscan was a problem.

 

Last version of Sparrow was -very- lethal, according to certain unnamable sources ... apparently the 'poor performance' is attributed to a lot of tail-on rmax launches.

[LaRata]

Not only that, but if you're going to go as far as to claim the F-15C has already done DACT with Su-27SM/35s and got spanked, you might as well claim that Darth Vader sent a couple TIE fighters and interceptors to USAF Red Flag.

 

Oh BTW, the TIEs beat the F-15. Turns out blaster fire is superior to AMRAAM.

 

No I do not say that ... I have make some errors from past from Español to Eng.

I say this planes SU-27SM/35/30 , EF2000 and Rafale can win in Air to Air combat vs the F-15C today.

 

France try to make some DACT with US F-15C vs Rafale but US side reject the offer.

 

We do not need blaster fire to win over the AIM-120. The Meteor and R-77 has similar or superior performance. The US has classified the performance of the AIM-120. But to many have been fired and to many have miss their target.

 

In 1996 6 AIM-120 were fired to IQAF Mig-25 but all miss their target. AIM-120 performance are not 100 % .

 

Some media report that Syrian Mig-25PD Shoot Down one Israeli F-15A in 1981 one F/A-18 in 1991 and one Predator in 2002.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25

 

Luis "LaRata" Barreto

[ViperEagle]

FWIW-

 

The AMRAAMS fired at the Iraqi MiG-25 were fired when the target was at near max range, and going at least 1.5 Mach, if not faster, and going away. No missile would be able to overcome that headstart, plus with the MiG-25's high topend speed, it's not really shocking.

 

The USAF doesnt turn down DACT offers due to "fear of looking bad", more so because the Rafale is not a likely threat aircraft, or because the French may have wanted certain things that the USAF would not agree to.

 

The R-77 is equal to the baseline AMRAAM, however, the Aim-120A's and B's arent nearly as common now as C's, each AMRAAM model is gaining increased range and sensors with each succession.

 

AND..no F-15's have been lost in actual combat. Despite what "some media sources" claim, there have been no A,B,C or D models lost in actual combat. I can find sources claiming that B-2 Spirit steath bombers have been shot down, despite that every serial number produced is still in service..so..I can throw that line too.

 

The MiG-25 kill on the Hornet and Predator are mostly confirmed via US and outside sources, so that I accept.

 

The F-15 has the best combat record of any aircraft in history, with a 100+ to ZERO kill ratio, and it will likely retire with that ratio intact. The F-15 was produced and was decades ahead of it's time, and in some ways, with the continued upgrades, is still on the pointy end of the spear.