F-15E SECONDARY Air-to-Air Role

[Nahen]

8 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Your knowledge is lacking.  Yep, the gun was used one time (not a surprise, guns don't get much A2A use these days).   The majority of kills for the eagle was done with sidewinders

... what's the range on that now?  Again, it's an exercise for you to bone up on your knowledge, so don't ask me for links

 

 

In 1991, 36 F-15 victories, 26 with AiM-7 Sparrow and 10 with AiM-9 Sidewinder... hmm so out of 104 victories you say the rest is AiM-9? I seriously doubt it... first of all, most of the kills are Israeli pilots - and they don't use Sidewinders, they use their own Python missiles. So Sidewinders? Are Pythons?

Reading the descriptions of Israeli fights, most of them had a standard course - rockets fired most often from a distance of 7-15 miles. In most cases again AiM-7... So how is it really?

[Nahen]

43 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

You can't look them up?  I mean you obviously did not.  The F-15 has dogfight kills against MiG-21s, 25s and 29s.  They are all well documented, this is an exercise for you to look them up.

Typical - speak up but without arguments, insulting the other side. you have arguments, give them, you don't have, go discuss something else.
I wrote - I don't know everything, I'm eager to learn about maneuvering fights of F-15 pilots. Do you have any example besides the one mentioned? You don't have, go do anything constructive.

43 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

You're absolutely wrong.   Maneuvering fights will always exist and for reasons most people don't want to even think of in a game.   There are the most modern approaches these days with HOBS missiles etc, but even now the aircraft needs to maneuver. 

Sure, I'm wrong.. and that's why for the last 20, maybe 30 years, there hasn't been any maneuvering combat... but that's how it always will be... Funny...
If I'm wrong, give me one example...

I don't know everything so give me an example

Edited February 21, 2023 by Nahen

[shagrat]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Nahen:

That's more or less the line of reasoning - 1 out of 104 cases bravo You ...

The point was more about the fact, that the very first(!) engagement, already went from BVR to close quarters, as trained and emphasized by the Israeli air force.

This is getting ridiculous... I am out.

 

[Top Jockey]

16 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Typical - speak up but without arguments, insulting the other side. you have arguments, give them, you don't have, go discuss something else.
I wrote - I don't know everything, I'm eager to learn about maneuvering fights of F-15 pilots. Do you have any example besides the one mentioned? You don't have, go do anything constructive.

Sure, I'm wrong.. and that's why for the last 20, maybe 30 years, there hasn't been any maneuvering combat... but that's how it always will be... Funny...
If I'm wrong, give me one example...

I don't know everything so give me an example

 

 

How do you know for sure, exactly what did or did not happen, more recently over the skies of Ukraine, Siria, and other less known hot spots around the world ?

And "that's how it always will be" ? Hahahaa, can you foresee the future ?

[GGTharos]

27 minutes ago, Nahen said:

I don't know everything so give me an example

I know you don't know everything, and I know you can easily look these up.   Typical, going on about stuff without educating yourself - this is old news, and again ... I don't have to do your homework for you.   And I'm not going to - that was something I did ages ago when I was in your position, but see, I actually did it and I don't feel like spending time on hunting down sources for you.   If it was something difficult to find I'd do it, but it isn't. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by GGTharos

[draconus]

4 hours ago, Nahen said:

Secondly, at that time, apart from planes, missiles carrying nuclear warheads were also a threat - the F-15 was also supposed to shoot them down - and maneuverability is completely unnecessary here - speed and altitude.

Yeah, you forgot about satellite shooting. Speed and altitude all the way, so it must've been desinged with space in mind?

Poor Aggressors wasting their time with all the DACTs...

[doedkoett]

All those Sparrow (and, I guess, AMRAAM) kills, were they against non-maneuvering strategic bombers?

[Nahen]

43 minutes ago, doedkoett said:

All those Sparrow (and, I guess, AMRAAM) kills, were they against non-maneuvering strategic bombers?

I do not understand the question? Are you conflating the concept of maneuvering combat with the fact that the plane make evasive manouvers before missile? Hmm, that doesn't really make sense anymore...

[Nahen]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

I know you don't know everything, and I know you can easily look these up.   Typical, going on about stuff without educating yourself - this is old news, and again ... I don't have to do your homework for you.   And I'm not going to - that was something I did ages ago when I was in your position, but see, I actually did it and I don't feel like spending time on hunting down sources for you.   If it was something difficult to find I'd do it, but it isn't. 

 

Great, and how does this compare to your theory of most kills with Sidewinders? Why is no one else confirming this other than you? Can you tell me where you got this information from if it's not available anywhere? It amuses me to discuss with someone like that who comes and undermines someone's words without ANY substantive arguments.

If you're going to write about nothing, why don't you go to a Kardashian forum or something...

[Njinsa]

This reminds me when a guy drives a car on wrong side of road and wonder 'WTF so many idiots are driving in opposite ?'.

 

 

 

 

[Top Jockey]

5 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Great, and how does this compare to your theory of most kills with Sidewinders? Why is no one else confirming this other than you? Can you tell me where you got this information from if it's not available anywhere? It amuses me to discuss with someone like that who comes and undermines someone's words without ANY substantive arguments.

If you're going to write about nothing, why don't you go to a Kardashian forum or something...

 

Yeah, but I don't see other people talking this way to you.

You know, it's clear from your tone that you are here essentially looking for an argument.

[doedkoett]

I am merely combining the argument that the F-15 is not designed for maneuvering combat since most kills have been with bvr missiles, with the argument that the F-15 was designed for downing soviet bombers. 
By that logic most of the BVR-kills must have been soviet bombers then? Because if it wasn’t, then, by the same logic, it could not have been built for that role.
 

You keep saying BVR combat does not require maneuverability. I don’t know your background, maybe you’re a seasoned fighter pilot, and I am making a fool out of my self here, but the little I know about BVR combat against other fighters is that it sure requires a great deal of maneuverability. Turning sharply at super sonic speeds is not something you do with high wing loading-low G airframes. Keeping that speed up through those maneuvers is also something that demands careful design. It’s not all engine power you know. 

The same features that make an airframe maneuverable in the high speed regime makes it maneuveable also at lower speeds.
At least that is my experience from reading litterature, listening to podcasts, reading about modern fighter design, talking to fighter pilots and aircraft designers and not least from having several hours in Gripen C and E simulators with (I presume) skilled instructors at Saab in Linköping. 

But as I said, you might be an instructor at Nellis for all I know, and I just made a fool out of my self here. 

[Nahen]

Just now, doedkoett said:

I am merely combining the argument that the F-15 is not designed for maneuvering combat since most kills have been with bvr missiles, with the argument that the F-15 was designed for downing soviet bombers. 

And let's end here because you are creating some your own theories - show me where I wrote that the F-15 was created to fight Russian bombers? Just don't take anything out of context - show me word for word where I wrote it. Just like the fact that I wrote - supposedly - that maneuvering issues were not taken into account when designing the F-15? show me?
It makes me laugh - as someone wrote above, one guy goes against the flow and is surprised ... Only none of these "others" can give specific arguments ...

The arguments of others
- one documented maneuvering dogfight against 102 other dogfights.
- hypothetical possibilities of maneuver fights against zero documented maneuver fights in the last 20 years,
- "go look for how many kills there were with Sidewinders" against specific data on a specific conflict with numbers...
This is how it looks .. and who is going against the flow here?

10 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

 

Yeah, but I don't see other people talking this way to you.

You know, it's clear from your tone that you are here essentially looking for an argument.

I'm looking for a quarrel? Cool...
One thing is certain, as I can see, we have a lot of professionals here who can use calculators, but they are completely unable to compare certain issues with reality.
For me, the end of the topic - yes, the F-15 is the best close dogfighter in the world, especially in the E version with CFT and 3 tons more weight than the previous versions, it escapes physics, it does not succumb to inertia. However, it is completely unsuitable for BvR. And the F-16 actually sees 50 miles, and can fire missiles up to 25. So does the Hornet...

Congratulations on your well-being, more calculators and charts. do not accidentally confront the real life because it can have tragic consequences.

[Kempleja]

This is so weird, why someone would want to discredit himself so severely on this forum for no apparent reason.

[GGTharos]

45 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Great, and how does this compare to your theory of most kills with Sidewinders? Why is no one else confirming this other than you? Can you tell me where you got this information from if it's not available anywhere? It amuses me to discuss with someone like that who comes and undermines someone's words without ANY substantive arguments.

I'll clear that up right now - you're right, it's not an F-15 statistic, it's an overall weapon statistic and it was a study on the trend of BVR changes.

45 minutes ago, Nahen said:

If you're going to write about nothing, why don't you go to a Kardashian forum or something...

You write about nothing all the time, what's your point?

You wrote that the eagle wasn't designed for dogfighting.  You're wrong - it absolutely was, and they absolutely train for it.

You make some dubious statement about attiring bandits BVR as the reason for this.   Guess what F-16's do - were they built for dogfighting?

You made some dubious statements about there being no maneuvering fights.  The F-15 has been in a bunch of IRL turning fights (as I've mentioned before), and a bunch of those sparrows were shot well inside WVR range, under WVR conditions.   Again, easy to look  up, do that yourself.

Even in very modern combat aircraft have found themselves in very definite WVR conditions, that again runs counter to your earlier statement that maneuvering capability is somehow not needed.

Everything single aircraft designed has a minimum maneuvering capability, and any aircraft designed for air to air combat primarily has plenty of it.   The F-35 is one aircraft that is designed primarily for strike, and so it's not so great at dogfighting ... but air to air is it's part-time job.

Edited February 21, 2023 by GGTharos

[doedkoett]

”Just like the fact that I wrote - supposedly - that maneuvering issues were not taken into account when designing the F-15? show me?”

To my post regarding John Boyds Energy-Maneuverability theory you answered:

”I don't want the same thing over and over again...
what was the point of creating the F-15, F-16, A-10? After all, the F-15 does everything, doesn't it? Somehow, however, someone decided that next to the F-15, an agile fighter was needed. The programs from which the F-15 and F-16 grew basically ran in parallel. So I ask the question - WHY??”

So I interpreted the quote as you meant that the F-15 was not designed to be agile, which it clearly was. Don’t know why the A-10 was included there, surely you don’t mean its a more agile dogfighter than the F-15? 

I don’t get why you wish to belittle the F-15 so much? It was a marvel when it came, and 50 years later it is still a fantastic airplane. It was a fantastic dogfighter and BVR-fighter when it came, long range, a fighter pilots dream, and it only got better from there.  But all that glamour came at a cost, that’s why the F-16 exists. Not because the F-15 was bad at anything, it was just too good. It was and is the F-16 that is limited in comparison. 

[Foogle]

26 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Everything single aircraft designed has a minimum maneuvering capability, and any aircraft designed for air to air combat primarily has plenty of it.   The F-35 is one aircraft that is designed primarily for strike, and so it's not so great at dogfighting ... but air to air is it's part-time job.

Not getting into the F-15 debate (lol), but the F-35 gave the F-16 the run around after it's flight control limitations were released.

Excerpt from https://www.keymilitary.com/article/out-shadows-0 which has become a premium site since I pulled the quote, sorry:

"Knight divulged a little more information about flying basic fighter manoeuvres (BFM) in an F-35. 'When our envelope was cleared to practise BFM we got the opportunity to fight some fourth-generation fighters. Remember, back the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldn't really matter and that they would still easily outmanoeuvre us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least...

High-G manoeuvring is fun, but having high fuel capacity and the ability to carry lots of stores is great too. During the weeks when we were flying BFM we also needed to drop a GBU-12 [laser-guided bomb] on the China Lake weapons range. Back in our F-16 days we'd have had to choose, since there is no way you can BFM with a bomb on your wing, let alone having the fuel to fly both missions in a single sortie. With the F-35, however, this isn't much of an issue. On one of the sorties, my colleague, Maj Pascal 'Smiley' Smaal, decided he would fly BFM and still have enough fuel to go to the range afterwards and drop his weapon. During the debrief, the adversary pilot told us he was confused as to why we went to the range after the fight. When 'Smiley' told him that he was carrying an inert GBU-12 the entire time and that he then dropped it afterwards during a test event, the silence on the other end of the line was golden'."

[GGTharos]

11 minutes ago, Foogle said:

Not getting into the F-15 debate (lol), but the F-35 gave the F-16 the run around after it's flight control limitations were released.

No.  And that's all I'm going to say.

[Tvrdi]

7 hours ago, Nahen said:

Only DCS fanboys fight in close dogfigts with smille on face. 
In fact, every pilot avoids this kind of combat as much as possible, and the F-15 was designed for that. And among the DCS gamers there is some fetish of "maneuver fighting" Well DCS boys it's not reality - it's where you die for real...

And you are surprised. Close dogfights are fun. Not that they would happen often in RL (but who knows if WW3 comes (hope not) with all the numbers in the air) but this is still a game (sim). TBH I stopped playing at "fox3 servers". I much more enjoy cold war setting where we have only sparrows and earlier sidewinders. Or that one with even earlier stuff like R60s etc. Often there is close fight and not so rare cannon kills. Its a game, have fun. I never enjoyed my AMRAM kills. Never. I feel like Im playing some strategic game. Shoot, wait, evade, pitbull, escape. And then maybe you will see in chat text if you killed someone. I admire if that is fun for someone. Guess which server is the most popular in DCS (not counting growling sidewinder comedy)?

With that said you should try warbirds guys, its all sweat and pain. But also a reward. Its fun.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Tvrdi

[Lord_Pyro]

PvP is just a part of dcs. Keep in mind that there are many (maybe even the majority) of players flying pve on and offline. Then it's not about just shooting some random guy out of the sky, it's about achieving a missiongoal. And then you pick the fox3 over the fox1 without a second thought, as it means you have way more control over the situation, clearing the path for a strikepackage for example.

Fox1,2 and close dogfights make for good 1v1, or maybe 4v4 fun but we are flying in a combat simulator which is capable of so much more than that.

[Horns]

1 hour ago, Foogle said:

Not getting into the F-15 debate (lol), but the F-35 gave the F-16 the run around after it's flight control limitations were released.

Excerpt from https://www.keymilitary.com/article/out-shadows-0 which has become a premium site since I pulled the quote, sorry:

"Knight divulged a little more information about flying basic fighter manoeuvres (BFM) in an F-35. 'When our envelope was cleared to practise BFM we got the opportunity to fight some fourth-generation fighters. Remember, back the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldn't really matter and that they would still easily outmanoeuvre us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least...

High-G manoeuvring is fun, but having high fuel capacity and the ability to carry lots of stores is great too. During the weeks when we were flying BFM we also needed to drop a GBU-12 [laser-guided bomb] on the China Lake weapons range. Back in our F-16 days we'd have had to choose, since there is no way you can BFM with a bomb on your wing, let alone having the fuel to fly both missions in a single sortie. With the F-35, however, this isn't much of an issue. On one of the sorties, my colleague, Maj Pascal 'Smiley' Smaal, decided he would fly BFM and still have enough fuel to go to the range afterwards and drop his weapon. During the debrief, the adversary pilot told us he was confused as to why we went to the range after the fight. When 'Smiley' told him that he was carrying an inert GBU-12 the entire time and that he then dropped it afterwards during a test event, the silence on the other end of the line was golden'."

Thanks, the article's interesting - as it happens I'm a key.aero subscriber so I looked up the full article. If the F-35 does have any BFM chops I'd think it would have to be due to something like nose-point authority. I must admit I'm skeptical, but I will keep it in mind. If we start seeing more reports like this - ideally from pilots of different types - then I guess I'll have to reconsider my biases.

[GGTharos]

The report was written at a time when the F-35 was getting this bad 'can't climb, can't turn, can't run' rap.  The rap isn't fair, but the F-35 was also not built to win dogfights.  It's not that it can't, just realize that nose-pointing, turn rates and acceleration are only the basics, the very tip of the iceberg when discussing maneuverability.

[Swordsman422]

Please note I'm not coming down on either side of the issue. Since someone asked, here is the Wikipedia list of US air-to-air combat victories since post-Vietnam. I'm searching for a list of F-15 kills in other services that include the weapon used, but am so far coming up empty. Still, here is as good a place to start as any. USAF F-15Cs have accounted for 36 of the F-15's 102 air combat victories. Notable that USAF F-15s have 10 kills with the AiM-9, 23 with the AiM-7, and 3 with the AiM-120.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_victories_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

[Spurts]

If the F-105 can have the most gun kills of Vietnam for the US (more than all other US types combined IIRC) then anything is possible even in real war.

[draconus]

10 hours ago, Nahen said:

Just like the fact that I wrote - supposedly - that maneuvering issues were not taken into account when designing the F-15? show me?

13 hours ago, Nahen said:

No, I defend the thesis that the F-15 is an aircraft that was not designed for this type of combat.

21 hours ago, Nahen said:

The F-15 was created not as a maneuverable fighter but as a response to the MiG-25 and nothing else.

22 hours ago, Nahen said:

The F-15 was never meant to be a maneuver fight aircraft. Neither version A nor version C. The fact that by the way it turned out that it has good technical and aerodynamic conditions to fight maneuvers quite effectively was a bonus to completely different assumptions.

So what's next? "I didn't mean that" or "it's not what I said"?

There are plenty of situations where interceptor or air superiority fighter can be forced into a dogfight and if it would not be designed with that in mind it would turn useless on the battlefield. Others already mentioned a VID requirement, there are also ROE restrictions, intercepted aircraft going rouge or even surprise attack, becuase your radar, wingmans', AWACS, EWR, RWR, DL and all that helps to buil SA but never gives you 100% coverage and detection.