F-15: Most Successful Modern Fighter Ever?

**YellowFever** · 18 Apr 12,, 20:12

Never thought of it in those terms but I guess a lack of guns will discourage one from getting into a knife fight.

Always advocated guns in any fighter because I grew up with the horror stories of F-4 pilots relying on the inadequacy of Vietnam era AAMs.

The Raptor is all about acquiring unfair advantages in a fight and if the odds becomes relatively even, it should bug out?

Do you agree with that chogy?

Hmm...that won't do much for pilots ego but I guess it is the smart way to fight.

**TopHatter** · 18 Apr 12,, 21:38

Great write up Chogy, I always love hearing the real deal from guys who actually "there".

I had bought and read Red Eagles: America's Secret MiGs a few months ago and was fascinated by both the American pilots reaction to the MiG's and also the "creative acquisition" methods used to get the planes in the first place.

**bigross86** · 18 Apr 12,, 22:10

Let's not forget the Israeli MiG-21

**Chogy** · 18 Apr 12,, 23:10

The gun is cool, it's romantic, it's historic. It's hard to let go, kind of like Navy BB's being retired. But it's time, IMO. Technology marches on. I've never flown the Raptor, but I can almost guarantee that their war book is written around a hit & run methodology that avoids a turning fight at all costs. I'd also guess that there are combined arms tactics that employ F-15's and F-16's for that sort of duty... mop up stuff, and point defense.

The Raptor is an offensive machine. It can penetrate, kill, get out undetected. An F-15 cannot do that nearly as well. OTOH, F-15's can defend airspace very well, supported by AWACs and other informational assets. They are not going to assign point or airfield defense to the F-22, that is what legacy fighters are for.

The best gun analogy I have ever come up with is this: A turning fight in modern jets is like two WW1 soldiers leaving their trenches and meeting in no-man's land for a bayonet fight. One will kill the other... and the victor will likely be killed in a hail of fire from the downed man's friends.

The need to turn is gone. All that is needed now is to slew a seeker towards a target. At most, one's nose may need to be moved through 90 to 120 degrees, but other than that, all those cool yo-yo's are simply dated.

**Jimmy** · 19 Apr 12,, 01:43

They still only carry 8 missiles.

**TopHatter** · 19 Apr 12,, 02:39

I liken the aerial gun to a cop's backup piece.

He'll probably never use it in his entire career. It's probably a bit of a nuisance at times.
Chances are it's of a caliber that is lacking real stopping power except at dangerously close ranges.

But he still carries it.

**drivinfool** · 19 Apr 12,, 03:01

Originally Posted by TopHatter

I liken the aerial gun to a cop's backup piece.

He'll probably never use it in his entire career. It's probably a bit of a nuisance at times.
Chances are it's of a caliber that is lacking real stopping power except at dangerously close ranges.

But he still carries it.

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

**USSWisconsin** · 19 Apr 12,, 03:07

But instead of the heavy gun, the aircraft could carry more missiles or fuel.

**TopHatter** · 19 Apr 12,, 03:45

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

But instead of the heavy gun, the aircraft could carry more missiles or fuel.

There's no question that it's a trade-off. But having that ace-in-the-hole could make all the difference in the world.

And who knows? The F-22 could wind up in roles that were never imagined for it.

**Jimmy** · 19 Apr 12,, 06:06

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

But instead of the heavy gun, the aircraft could carry more missiles or fuel.

Not enough to make much of a difference. A few minutes of gas, or the weight of an AMRAAM or two (but no extra place for it to actually go).

**appu_sen** · 19 Apr 12,, 10:09

Originally Posted by Chogy

The gun is cool, it's romantic, it's historic. It's hard to let go, kind of like Navy BB's being retired. But it's time, IMO. Technology marches on. I've never flown the Raptor, but I can almost guarantee that their war book is written around a hit & run methodology that avoids a turning fight at all costs. I'd also guess that there are combined arms tactics that employ F-15's and F-16's for that sort of duty... mop up stuff, and point defense.

The Raptor is an offensive machine. It can penetrate, kill, get out undetected. An F-15 cannot do that nearly as well. OTOH, F-15's can defend airspace very well, supported by AWACs and other informational assets. They are not going to assign point or airfield defense to the F-22, that is what legacy fighters are for.

The best gun analogy I have ever come up with is this: A turning fight in modern jets is like two WW1 soldiers leaving their trenches and meeting in no-man's land for a bayonet fight. One will kill the other... and the victor will likely be killed in a hail of fire from the downed man's friends.

The need to turn is gone. All that is needed now is to slew a seeker towards a target. At most, one's nose may need to be moved through 90 to 120 degrees, but other than that, all those cool yo-yo's are simply dated.

Then I see that the days of manned fighter are getting over very soon.
UAVs could do this job (air to air fights).

**Chogy** · 19 Apr 12,, 15:22

Originally Posted by appu_sen

Then I see that the days of manned fighter are getting over very soon.
UAVs could do this job (air to air fights).

I cannot see it, at least for another 20 to 30 years. The mental "decision tree" in ACM makes chess look like tic-tac-toe. The number of possible action branchings based upon the most subtle of parameters is enormous. A drone could be set up to be a launch and leave missile truck, but anything more complex, and it's going to fail miserably. Besides, we currently do not have the sensors capable of replicating the human eye/brain/hand combination. How is a drone supposed to know if there is an enemy at 8:00 high? How is it supposed to ID it? A human can, at a glance. Good eyes can scan a volume approximately 12 miles in diameter, instantly assess threats, and react.

UCAV's like Predator still require humans to run the show. And they are little more than an armed, airborne sensor platform, with slewable sensors.

I understand the issues with the gun... we've hashed it out here more than once. The M-61 gun, plus the huge drum of ammo, plus the hydraulics and electrics required to make it go, is BIG. I'd guess if you replaced the volume occupied by the gun with jet fuel, you'd have 4,000 or more pounds of extra fuel, and fuel is so precious. It's hard to overemphasize.

**Stitch** · 19 Apr 12,, 17:48

Originally Posted by TopHatter

There's no question that it's a trade-off. But having that ace-in-the-hole could make all the difference in the world.

And who knows? The F-22 could wind up in roles that were never imagined for it.

I know in Afghanistan F-18's, after they had already dropped all of their ordnance, used their M-61's in strafing runs on enemy positions. I doubt you'll see F-22's making strafing runs anytime in the near future, but you never know . . . . .

**Chogy** · 20 Apr 12,, 14:43

Originally Posted by Stitch

I know in Afghanistan F-18's, after they had already dropped all of their ordnance, used their M-61's in strafing runs on enemy positions. I doubt you'll see F-22's making strafing runs anytime in the near future, but you never know . . . . .

The ideal answer is the A-10!

I know my position on the gun is not a popular one. But to the best of my knowledge, the last gun kill air to air between two fighters was 30 years ago, a Bekaa valley engagement, and my recollection of the encounter was that "The Israeli pilot did not want to waste an expensive missile on a clueless opponent."

Note that the U.S. Navy has more or less eliminated "the gun" - the big, offensive guns, at least - from its fleet in favor of guided missiles and fighter aircraft. All of the same reasons the Navy has done this is applicable to jets. Missiles allow stand off attack with a very high Pk.

**citanon** · 20 Apr 12,, 22:50

Originally Posted by Stitch

I know in Afghanistan F-18's, after they had already dropped all of their ordnance, used their M-61's in strafing runs on enemy positions. I doubt you'll see F-22's making strafing runs anytime in the near future, but you never know . . . . .

You know, why don't they just mount a bunch of those big guns on a cargo plane and blast the enemy apart with an infinite stream of ammo while slowly circling the battlefield.

Oh... wait....

:P