Warbird Information Exchange

Any combat airframe that holds a 120+ to zero ACM record is far from junk! so that takes the wind out of your sails on the F-15 argument,and, as I recall from many years ago when you probably weren't even here yet, the big five sided building in Virginia said that the 'F-4 PHANTOM doesn't need any guns because gun to gun fighting is in the distant past' (nudge-nudge, wink-wink). Yes the F-22 can do some amazing things but, at the cost per unit and with the house of cards contracting scheme where every state except Alaska has some piece of the thing, for the money the thing should be a combination of BLACKHAWKS airplane and Wonderwomans airplane and should also be capable of solving global warming. In other words, I don't feel I'm getting good return on my investment.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I agree with aseanaero: It is not just simply a matter of best dogfighter as best dogfighter per cost. In the Vietnam War we had a circa 2:1 kill ratio in air-to-air combat, but their planes cost only a sixth as much, so our higher kill ratio was actually to their advantage.

If our planes cost a $billion and theirs cost a $million, and each side spent the same amount of money, we could have a 500:1 kill raio and lose wholesale. In such a contest, their plane would be the better figther. It is the old Tiger vs. T-34 tank question: Tigers were the better tank one-on-one but the war was one-on-twenty. T-34s won.

A cheaper fighter that is more than adequate beats out the superior superior fighter built in inadequate numbers.

So on that basis, what is the best dogfighter (not likely anything built in the US!)

_________________
Kevin McCartney

I am also in that category of rather see more of a mediocre fighter then a few high tech ones. Sorry!

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

I would fly the DEFENDER!!!

JC

Tell that to the guys flying them. If I'm in the cockpit I want the very best equipment to support me possible. Imagine if during ww2 the US decided instead of paying Rolls Royce for the Merlin for the P-51 they would keep the Alison engine instead. Or if they decided that they would pass on the P-51 completely in favor of the P-40. Sure they both could do the same job, its just that one of them wasn't as good as the other. But you could buy more of the lesser. I'd say that the Japanese during the war had that very idea. They were going to make as many planes and train as many pilots as possible to throw at the USA. The Germans eventually had that plan as well. Instead of building new designs, they stuck with the same outdated aircraft throughout the war. Sure they came up with many many innovations, but the lack of implementation of those innovations in a timely manor ultimately doomed their war effort. You could also compare the same idea to the tank wars. A group of Sherman tanks could take out a Tiger tank eventually, but would you want to be in the first 2-4 Shermans?

As far as the F-15's combat record it is very impressive, there is no getting around that. I think it says more than any of us can ever try to say when a F-15 driver says that the Raptor can wipe the floor with an Eagle. After seeing the Raptor demo team a couple of times, all I can say is it is the most impressive plane I've ever seen fly. I would say that over confidence in our current equipment, and our current air superiority is a problem. I am far from an expert as far as air powers go, but it seems to me that if there are any threats out there, even if they are flying anything from a mig 21 to a brand spanking new Sukhoi T-50 in 2015, our pilots should be given the best possible advantage in combat.

I hope this all makes sense, there was a coffee break in the middle of this post.

The answer is "yes, but...". The but part being that nobody has a huge fleet of aircraft today. Most of those Migs are long since retired, so the "overwhelming numbers" threat really doesn't exist today. Besides, if there might be a flight of F-22's loitering just over the horizon, who really wants to be the first Mig-XX pilot to go gear-up? If there IS a flight of F-22's nearby, the first dozen or so Migs off the ground are gonna have a really bad day and the ones that launch after that are going to be searching for an enemy that is halfway home, stealthy, and in supercruise.

No, actually it doesn't.

First off, the F-15 has had 35+ years to amass that many victories. When the Raptor has been in service for that long, we'll be able to use that record as some sort of relative comparison of the airframe's success.

Second, I'm perfectly aware that the Eagle isn't junk. YOU are the one who said that the Raptor was a loser because it had been bested by older and cheaper aircraft. I said that I had bested F-15s and F-16s with an older and cheaper aircraft, and applied the same logic you used in judging the Raptor to those two aircraft. It is precisely the same comparison...and just as worthless.



Wow...things happened before I was born? No kidding? I guess that does take all the wind out of my argument, then. Nothing like taking the discussion ad hominem just for kicks. Well played.

And, thanks for the "education", but I am pretty familiar with the philosophical arguments behind the armament design decisions (and mistakes) made on the F-4. Knowing stuff about airpower is sorta my job...even if it happened before I was born.



Oh? Curious how you know what the capabilities of the Raptor -- and for that matter, the F-15 and F-16 -- are. Unless your source has a classification level on it other than "unclassified", then you have absolutely NO idea what the capabilities of any of those aircraft are.

_________________

Would your answer be the same if it were your pink butt sitting in that aircraft facing an adversary shooting back at you for real?

Philosophical arguments like this make a lot of sense right up until it is your life that is at risk.

_________________

I'd choose an AC-130 with the stipulation that my adversary could only fly to the left of me.

my 2 cents, assuming my adversary is in an aircraft from the same time period:

WWII era, and talking pure dogfighter here, I think I might opt for the A6M2.

post WWII to Korea its a toss-up between a Sabre and a Mig 15.

Vietnam I'd be tempted by a Mig 17/19 or a Skyhawk, but in the end I'd go for a Crusader.

mid 70's to mid 80's maybe the F-16, or perhaps an F-5E.

90's and beyond I'm not sure, but a Mig 29 couldn't be a bad place to start, maybe a Su 27?

interesting topic!

greg v.

or would that be the LOOSER....

So, for the next dogfighter scenario, how about this:
Was there any time in the post WW2 era that any other nation, friend or foe, could field their best 20 pilots in their best aircraft against our best 20 pilots in our best aircraft, and fight us to a draw?

Would Soviet pilots flying MiG-15's against Americans in Sabres during Korea count?

This was the logic that brought us the Fairey Battle... didn't work out so well. They were shot down by the score, at a tragic price in terms of crew. I'd rather have a relative few highly sophisticated aircraft with highly trained pilots than a whole fleet of lesser aircraft. There is of course a point at which you don't have enough aircraft to cover the airspace required. Not sure what that breakdown would be though.

Cheers,
Richard

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com

why don't you go one further and darken the skies with lousy fighters, shear numbers should make up for lack of capability.



of course pilots will become sorta expendable...