ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (01/23/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >>Sorry to disagree but I think the F14 is more maneuverable then you think. >>Back in the early days of the F15s, the Navy F14s used to regularly >>beat the F15s in dogfight simulations. > >More recently (say 3 years ago) a friend of mine who flew F-15s for >the USAF claimed that, all other things being equal, an F-15 can >almost always beat an F-14 in a dogfight, and an F-16 will almost >always beat an F-15. By "almost always," he said he meant "15 of 16 >times." I recall reading in BGEN Chuck Yeager's (USAF, Ret.) book _Yeager_ about his experiences flying the MiG-15 during the Korean War after we had gotten a NK pilot to defect with one. The results of the flight tests performed by Yeager on the MiG-15 showed that the F-86 Sabre of the USAF was an infinitely superior aircraft in most respects (speed, maneuverability, survivability, etc.). Yeager then preceded to wax the fannies of any Sabre pilot who wanted to take him on in the MiG. The Sabre pilots, of course, claimed that the MiG was better than the Sabre (no fault to their flying, of course). Yeager retalliated by putting a Sabre pilot in the MiG and he flew a Sabre. Again, Yeager waxed their tails all the time. What this proves is that the quality of the plane involved in a dogfight dosen't make the difference--the quality of the pilot does. Allan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 3/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or Box 4719, 5125 Margaret Morrison St., Pgh., PA 15213 "Give, expecting nothing thereof." "Phi Kappa Theta, just the best." "An unwarlike Marine is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar." Nothing that I have written is the opinion of anyone but myself. So there!
eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) (01/24/91)
From: eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) In article <1991Jan21.041637.5577@cbnews.att.com> martens@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) writes: In article <1991Jan19.043412.6425@cbnews.att.com> anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes: >Sorry to disagree but I think the F14 is more maneuverable then you think. >Back in the early days of the F15s, the Navy F14s used to regularly >beat the F15s in dogfight simulations. More recently (say 3 years ago) a friend of mine who flew F-15s for the USAF claimed that, all other things being equal, an F-15 can almost always beat an F-14 in a dogfight, and an F-16 will almost always beat an F-15. By "almost always," he said he meant "15 of 16 times." He is right but...All other things frequently aren't equal, in this case the experience of the pilots. Since aircraft carriers at sea almost always have CAP aircraft aloft, F-14 pilots get LOTS of practice time compared to F15 drivers. Also Navy pilots tend to spend more of their careers in cockpits, so both of the above statements are probably right. However, with the current goings on in the Persian Gulf, this should even out very quickly. (Although the F-16, F/A-18 and F-15E pilots may spend a lot of time hauling freight while their buddies fly CAP.) -- Robert I. Eachus Our troops will have the best possible support in the entire world. And they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind their back. President George Bush, January 16, 1991
JDG1@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Jonathan David Goldstein) (01/25/91)
From: JDG1@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Jonathan David Goldstein)
Saying the F-16 is better than the F-14 and F-15 in dogfights is a
tremendous generalization. If by "dogfight" one is refering to general
air-air combat, the superior radar capability of the F-14 and F-15 would
render the F-16 useless before the latter could even achieve a radar
lock. A visual fight would favor the F-16 (all else being equal).
Finally, I would like to add that in aerial combat, F-15s don't
battle MiG-29s. Rather, men are pitted against one another. The
machines they fly are simply tools to carry out their tasks efficiently
and effectively. The airplane, as a weapons system, must be looked at
as a whole. The pilot is by far the most important element.
Jonathan Goldstein
Lehigh Universitysmpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) (01/25/91)
From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
In article martens@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) writes...
\\Sorry to disagree but I think the F14 is more maneuverable then you think.
\\Back in the early days of the F15s, the Navy F14s used to regularly
\\beat the F15s in dogfight simulations.
\More recently (say 3 years ago) a friend of mine who flew F-15s for
\the USAF claimed that, all other things being equal, an F-15 can
\almost always beat an F-14 in a dogfight, and an F-16 will almost
\always beat an F-15. By "almost always," he said he meant "15 of 16
\times."
Some time ago, I talked to a F16 pilot who was a Red Flag instructor who
said that he had no trouble in beating the F14 and Harrier, the F15 was
a little more difficult and the F/A 18 was the most difficult.henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/27/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: JDG1@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Jonathan David Goldstein) >... If by "dogfight" one is refering to general >air-air combat, the superior radar capability of the F-14 and F-15 would >render the F-16 useless before the latter could even achieve a radar >lock... Yes and no. The F-15 and F-16 acquire each other on radar at about the same time, believe it or not. The F-15's superior theoretical radar range is completely counterbalanced by the F-16's much smaller radar cross-section. Note also that almost all air-combat kills are taken completely by surprise. The F-15's radar won't do diddly to warn its pilot against an F-16 sneaking up behind him without using radar. (The F-16, being smaller, is sneakier.) The standard radar-missile engagement envisions stupid opponents, who are not always available. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry