Regarding F-15 s combat record

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

17 years 4 months

Posts: 151

An impressive number as data available puts it at 100 + air to air victories.

I`ve checked Coopers centralized figures and came with 109 victories.

Thing is, when you start to make a deeper analysis things don`t look that cool, allow to explain.

1. 86 jets ! Out of 109 identified 86 are classified as fighter (we don't count heli`s or CAS or transport etc)
2. 73 jets ! from 86, 73 are older generations, lets not kid each other, for an Eagle driver shooting down MiG`s 21 & 23 it`s easier than clubbing baby seals. Period !
3. 13 Jets ! fall into the 4th generation category, more specific Fulcrum A & B

Many of these were done BVR hardly a fair game taking in consideration that both in Iraq`s case as well as Serbia`s their ground control network was under heavy SEAD pressure.
Throw in a huge difference in available aircraft and MCR and those USAF victories were clearly easy achieved.

Basically where the field was somehow leveled was in the case of the IAF 4 victories.

So, against a 4th generation aircraft -keep in mind export version- even the 13 don`t look that impressive if you take in consideration all aspects.

What`s your take on this ?

Original post

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

An impressive number as data available puts it at 100 + air to air victories.

I`ve checked Coopers centralized figures and came with 109 victories.

Thing is, when you start to make a deeper analysis things don`t look that cool, allow to explain.

1. 86 jets ! Out of 109 identified 86 are classified as fighter (we don't count heli`s or CAS or transport etc)
2. 73 jets ! from 86, 73 are older generations, lets not kid each other, for an Eagle driver shooting down MiG`s 21 & 23 it`s easier than clubbing baby seals. Period !
3. 13 Jets ! fall into the 4th generation category, more specific Fulcrum A & B

Many of these were done BVR hardly a fair game taking in consideration that both in Iraq`s case as well as Serbia`s their ground control network was under heavy SEAD pressure.
Throw in a huge difference in available aircraft and MCR and those USAF victories were clearly easy achieved.

Basically where the field was somehow leveled was in the case of the IAF 4 victories.

So, against a 4th generation aircraft -keep in mind export version- even the 13 don`t look that impressive if you take in consideration all aspects.

What`s your take on this ?

Who wants a fair fight? Certainly not militaries that are going to exploit any advantage be it: qualitative, quantitative, C3ISTAR.

In most cases, Israeli vs. various Arab forces, or USAF vs. Iraqi, it probably would not have mattered a lick who was flying what aircraft. Superior training, superior C3, superior intelligence would have guaranteed the same results.

The F-15 has been successful because it was designed and operated within the USAF doctrine (and emulated by others), which stresses the above.

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 2,814

Thing is, when you start to make a deeper analysis things don`t look that cool, allow to explain.

1. 86 jets ! Out of 109 identified 86 are classified as fighter (we don't count heli`s or CAS or transport etc)
2. 73 jets ! from 86, 73 are older generations, lets not kid each other, for an Eagle driver shooting down MiG`s 21 & 23 it`s easier than clubbing baby seals. Period !
3. 13 Jets ! fall into the 4th generation category, more specific Fulcrum A & B...

What`s your take on this ?

You may call the MiG-23 an earlier generation of jet compared to the F-15 - but the MiG barely entered frontline service around 3 years earlier than the American jet. Soviet fighter jets similar in technology and generation to the F-15 - MiG-29, Su-27 were not seen outside the USSR till around 1986 - a whole 10 years after the F-15. It's hardly surprising that the Syrian AF only flew MiG-21 and MiG-23 against Israel in 1982 - that's all the Soviets had in their military at that time as well.

Member for

17 years 4 months

Posts: 151

You may call the MiG-23 an earlier generation of jet compared to the F-15 - but the MiG barely entered frontline service around 3 years earlier than the American jet. Soviet fighter jets similar in technology and generation to the F-15 - MiG-29, Su-27 were not seen outside the USSR till around 1986 - a whole 10 years after the F-15. It's hardly surprising that the Syrian AF only flew MiG-21 and MiG-23 against Israel in 1982 - that's all the Soviets had in their military at that time as well.

The 23 WAS a generation older, let`s keep it real.

In service timing that`s a different story, conception & execution wise they are not in the same group.

Bottom line, the most acclaimed fighter jet for it`s hunting prowess actually has 13 (out of 100 + ) victories worth mentioning.

If we keep cool headed the 9 USAF ones were more than one sided scenarios, in those cases their enemies were badly outnumbered and outgunned plus they took on the little brother from the Cold War dance pairs:

F-16 - MiG-29
F-15 - Su-27

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

Why do I once again have that strange feeling that a Fan-boy of some certain kind do not want accept the facts !
I thin both other answers clearly explained You the reasons ... if You do not want to accept this, then just leave it.

By the way in a very reliably North Korean forum I read that one of these 4 victories was against a nearly blind pilot and the other two against pilots older than 42, so these are "unfair" engagements too, since You do not fight against handicapped people ... as such by Your own logic, the F-15 won overall only one engagement and this one surely just by chance and luck! :stupid:

Deino

Member for

17 years 4 months

Posts: 151

Why do I once again have that strange feeling that a Fan-boy of some certain kind do not want accept the facts !

Deino

Obviously you are not the sharpest tool in the box by any stretch of imagination.

I was breaking down the combat record using pure logic, something you sorely miss.

Fact is, out of 100+ victories 13 !! are worth mentioning and considering.

But maybe for your limping intellect Mi-24, Il-76 and grandpa Fishbed are worthy adversaries

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

...
Fact is, out of 100+ victories 13 !! are worth mentioning and considering.
...

Oh, God, I think now my worst fears about your logic have just come true. But o.k. I'm or we are all plain stupid, and the F-15 is a baaaad fighter since it scored only 13 "worthy to be mentioned" by Your logic victories.

Any more questions ?

Member for

17 years 4 months

Posts: 151

the F-15 is a baaaad fighter since it scored only 13 "worthy to be mentioned" by Your logic victories.

1. Point exactly where I said Eagle is a bad fighter

2. How can OLDER GENERATION Fishbeds and Floggers be considered real threats ? Nevermind Su-22 & 25, various other helicopters etc

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

1. Point exactly where I said Eagle is a bad fighter

2. How can OLDER GENERATION Fishbeds and Floggers be considered real threats ? Nevermind Su-22 & 25, various other helicopters etc

The problem is actually quite simple: a fighter has to kill other aerial targets, and here the rules are not "this generation vs. this one" is allowed and this is unfair as such the quality of a certain type is dismissed. Where do You draw the like in regard to the MiG-29 ? ... or even do You want to differ between different lots the F-15, the E-model or a MSIP-II C ?? Even more if the Russians had simply nothing better at hand when the F-15 came out, ... why does the Eagle has to wait until a true and justified opponent comes out ? If the opponent is simply not capable to pose a real threat then its simply not the F-15's problem.

As such - and even if I know what You want to explore with Your question - this tread is completely stupid, useless ... it's like telling the Great White Shark or a Tiger an unfair predator since all small fishes or a deer simply can't be considered a real threat !

Deino

Member for

17 years 4 months

Posts: 151

The problem is actually quite simple: a fighter has to kill other aerial targets, and here the rules are not "this generation vs. this one" is allowed and this is unfair as such the quality of a certain type is dismissed. Where do You draw the like in regard to the MiG-29 ? ... or even do You want to differ between different lots the F-15, the E-model or a MSIP-II C ?? Even more if the Russians had simply nothing better at hand when the F-15 came out, ... why does the Eagle has to wait until a true and justified opponent comes out ? If the opponent is simply not capable to pose a real threat then its simply not the F-15's problem.

As such - and even if I know what You want to explore with Your question - this tread is completely stupid, useless ... it's like telling the Great White Shark or a Tiger an unfair predator since all small fishes or a deer simply can't be considered a real threat !

Deino

Yet you fail to point out where I said the F-15 is a bad fighter
You fail to answer straight the second question.

Maybe in your view (intellectually limited) an Air superiority fighter of F-15`s calibre must brag with slamming right and left jets that are decades older in conception and a fraction of a cost compared to the Eagle.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

So . . . what you're saying is that if fighter A is superior to fighter B, then its superiority does not count. A fighter is only superior when its pilots win despite the opposing aircraft being superior.

Thus, if an F-15 shoots down a MiG-21, it doesn't show the superiority of the F-15, since the F-15 is superior & therefore its superiority is discounted.

Can you clarify this for me, please? Do you really mean that you consider aerial warfare as akin to some sort of handicap race, or a sport such as boxing where opponents are matched against those in the same weight class? Do you think it's a game?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

Yet you fail to point out where I said the F-15 is a bad fighter
You fail to answer straight the second question.

Maybe in your view (intellectually limited) an Air superiority fighter of F-15`s calibre must brag with slamming right and left jets that are decades older in conception and a fraction of a cost compared to the Eagle.

Why do I have to show You were You said something, when You are not even capable to explain what You want ? As such - and even more given Your aggressive way or arguing - it seems You are in no way interested in a true and honest discussion but simply to troll around.

I think You are correct, I'm too much "intellectually limited" and therefore give up ... but maybe You try this forum, there's this way of behavior a common thing, but please not here.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/

Deino

Member for

17 years 4 months

Posts: 151

So . . . what you're saying is that if fighter A is superior to fighter B, then its superiority does not count. A fighter is only superior when its pilots win despite the opposing aircraft being superior.

Thus, if an F-15 shoots down a MiG-21, it doesn't show the superiority of the F-15, since the F-15 is superior & therefore its superiority is discounted.

Can you clarify this for me, please? Do you really mean that you consider aerial warfare as akin to some sort of handicap race, or a sport such as boxing where opponents are matched against those in the same weight class? Do you think it's a game?

Anyway let`s break this

"what you're saying is that if fighter A is superior to fighter B, then its superiority does not count" - if A is 4th and B it`s 3rd - it is superior by default, no contest here, a mere procedure in handling the older type

"A fighter is only superior when its pilots win despite the opposing aircraft being superior." It`s superior when it handles something belonging, first to the same generation and preferably same class

I wasn`t talking about what is fair or not in warfare.

Just pointing out a huge list of targets that fall in easy prey category for an F-15 and should be put under the category- hardly worth mentioning. Period.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

The 23 WAS a generation older, let`s keep it real.

In service timing that`s a different story, conception & execution wise they are not in the same group.

Bottom line, the most acclaimed fighter jet for it`s hunting prowess actually has 13 (out of 100 + ) victories worth mentioning.

If we keep cool headed the 9 USAF ones were more than one sided scenarios, in those cases their enemies were badly outnumbered and outgunned plus they took on the little brother from the Cold War dance pairs:

F-16 - MiG-29
F-15 - Su-27

It does not matter if the MiG-23 was a technological generation older or not. What matters is entry into service. This means strictly speaking every air force has its own generations with the next generation simply being the one that replaces the older one. There isn't necessarily much improvement.
The MiG-23M first flew in 1972, same year as the F-15, service entry was in '73 iirc, which is much closer to the F-15's in '74 compared to 1983 for the MiG-29. So yes, the MiG-23 is very much an F-15 contemporary.
Much more important than that are exact engagement conditions such as pilot skills and of course the specs of involved export models aka monkey models.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271


Just pointing out a huge list of targets that fall in easy prey category for an F-15 and should be put under the category- hardly worth mentioning. Period.

That's true but thats true for most fighters. More so for modern age jet fighters. Even back in the day of glorious guns only fights, many kills were achieved by sneaking up from behind.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

Anyway let`s break this

"what you're saying is that if fighter A is superior to fighter B, then its superiority does not count" - if A is 4th and B it`s 3rd - it is superior by default, no contest here, a mere procedure in handling the older type

"A fighter is only superior when its pilots win despite the opposing aircraft being superior." It`s superior when it handles something belonging, first to the same generation and preferably same class

I wasn`t talking about what is fair or not in warfare.

Just pointing out a huge list of targets that fall in easy prey category for an F-15 and should be put under the category- hardly worth mentioning. Period.


Exactly. You're treating it as a game, not war. You're not interested in military effectiveness.

"Fair" is a sporting concept, not a military one.

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

it's not for nothing that, as it was so often said in WWII: "most downed pilots never knew what hit them"

the whole point in an air superiority fighter is that it outclasses the opposition it encounters. In the timeframe when the F-15 made its victories, it had little to no opposition to fight against (outclassed it), either through the simple capabilities gap in its favor, or because the massive advantage in support it was integrated in or for whatever reason one may imagine...

to put it simply, it did what was expected from it in its time: bring air superiority where it was operating.

was it fair? probably not... when NATO went against Serbia and its half a dozen barely flyable and unmaintained migs 29, it was everything except a fair fight, but, as said previously, wars are fought to be won, fair or unfair

the same goes on for other types as well: longer range missiles to allow you to shoot before your enemy can retaliate, GBUs to allow you to bomb the h... out of the bad guys in their toyotas 15000ft below, cruise missiles to hit those that have tried to mount some sort of air defence, and so on.. it's always about who'll get the most (unfair) advantage over the other guy

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

So, against a 4th generation aircraft -keep in mind export version- even the 13 don`t look that impressive if you take in consideration all aspects.

What`s your take on this ?

So if I understand you correctly, it isn't fair to compare the F-15 to its Soviet competitors that were in production and service at the time the F-15 entered service because the F-15 was simply too advanced.

The only fair comparison is to look at the F-15's kill record against Soviet aircraft roughly a decade newer, where it also has a perfect record.

This proves the F-15 isn't all that impressive?

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

F-15 was a leap no doubt, and Russia takes around 10 years to field a counter that slightly topple the throne,
but i like to present this list, its worth nodding pilots quality, support, and execution.
I believe Israel stated that the outcome would have been the same had they and the Arab league
switched planes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 2,248

The OP has not introduced the concept of "fair" into the conversation.

This has been introduced by those rushing to defend the record of the F15.

The OP merely pointed out the lack of quality opponents faced by the F15.

In my view it in no way downgrades the achievements of the F15 and its pilots to understand the quality of the opposition.

You can only fight what is put in front of you and the F15 did that impressively.

In another time and another place the SE5a, SPAD XIII, Sopwith Dolphin and Fokker D.VII all competed for the mantal many accord the F15 today, however no one would seriously suggest that any of them should be thought of as the ultimate fighter.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 1,138

The OP has not introduced the concept of "fair" into the conversation.

This has been introduced by those rushing to defend the record of the F15.

The OP merely pointed out the lack of quality opponents faced by the F15.

In my view it in no way downgrades the achievements of the F15 and its pilots to understand the quality of the opposition.

You can only fight what is put in front of you and the F15 did that impressively.

In another time and another place the SE5a, SPAD XIII, Sopwith Dolphin and Fokker D.VII all competed for the mantal many accord the F15 today, however no one would seriously suggest that any of them should be thought of as the ultimate fighter.

I agree. Moreover, people often think along the lines of "which plane is better than which", something that often overlooks the fact that -modern- planes are "weapon systems", not merely flying machines.

For instance, plane X might fly better and be more impressive than plane Y, but plane Y might be a 10x more effective weapons system and completely dominate an engagement irrespective of the fact that is not as good a flying performer as the X plane.