RockySo in case of a dogfight or WVR engagement, what does bombload, range or carrier suitability give you?
It justifies the cost of the fighter, and the F-4 is a better fighter for other reasons. I tried to keep cost out of this thread… :rolleyes:
Sparrows made two BVR kills in Vietnam, the rest was WVR. If they hadn’t had the Sparrow, they had used other missiles. The Sparrow had a kill ratio below 5%. The fact they used doesn’t make it irreplacable. 5% means that if five Phantoms go into combat against 5 Mirage, and they all use their entire load of Sparrows (20 in total), one would score a hit (19 not). The expended missiles roughly make the price of one Mirage.
“In Vietnam, the AIM-7 had a success rate of about 9%.”
– Fighter Wing, by Tom Clancy, c 1995
“Sparrow achieved a probability of kill (PK) per launch of 8 to 10 percent in Vietnam… Sidewinder was better with a PK of about 15 per cent”
– Modern Air Combat, by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, c 1983
“Between May 1972 and January 1973 100 Sidewinder missiles were launched by US Air Force aircraft at North Vietnamese MiGs, ten of which were shot down. In the same period 216 Sparrow missiles were launched and 23 aircraft shot down.”
– The Linebacker Raids, by John T. Smith, c 1998
That isn’t a huge difference. I also know that sometimes more than one Sparrow was fired at the target, and both Sparrows hit. That lowers the kill rate, while showing the reliability wasn’t so terrible. And note that more than twice as many MiGs got shot down, by the USAF, with the Sparrow as the Sidewinder. Obviously the pilots had a choice of which missile to fire, and they selected the AIM-7 more often. Range and aspect must have been a factor in the decision.
“inadequate air combat training, and preemptive firing of many missiles outside their envelopes contributed to the low missile launch-to-kill ratio.”
– Air warfare in the missile age, by Lon O. Nordeen, Jr., c 1985
Without regard of the cost the comparison suits American designs. Your list is flawed.
The list is the answer to the question I posed. If you want to ask a different question, then start your own thread.
RockyIf thats the case then the whole setup isn’t really realistic.
I think that the AIM-120 was given BVR capability with the expectation that it would be used. :rolleyes:
For both pilots to start the fight off in their preferred positions is mutually exclusive (they’ll want to sneak up on the other guy’s 6)
Well, think of it this way: Each fighter takes off at the same time, and their bases are far enough apart that each has plenty of time to reach whatever speed and altitude they want before they meet each other.
RockyWas it not pretty much a waste of time (vibration throwing the sight off?)
That was a problem, but…
“In testimony to the cannon’s effectiveness, F-4s scored three MiG kills the first month it was installed, and downed seven more MiGs with it before the bombing halt of April 1, 1968.”
-Air warfare in the missile age, by Lon O. Nordeen, Jr., c 1985
The gun wasn’t introduced until May, 1967. I think only the F-4D had a gunsight for it. The Navy got a gun pod at some point, but I don’t think they ever used it. There were no Navy F-4 gun kills.
RockyJust in case I missed it… why was the Meteor picked ahead of the 262 again? :confused:
We are only considering fighters since the end of WWII.
When was the EF Typhoon in service? 2006? or 2007?
“The official in-service date for the first RAF Typhoon T.Mk 1 (ZJ803) was 30 June 2003.”
“That was not defined in quite the same way as the origional ISD, however, which is based on when the aircraft would be declared and able to undertake operations, and at least matching the capability of the aircraft being replaced… In January 2006, the UK House of Commons ‘Defence – Third Report’ revealed that the Typhoon ISD, defined in that fashion, was now expected during 2009.”
“The first operational front line unit, No. 3 Squadron, formed at Coningsby on 1 April 2006.”
-international Air Power Review, Vol. 20, c 2006
Does it slot in between the -15C and the -22A?
Just slightly, I think.
Where does the Su-30 MKI fit in as well?
Good question. 😀
WVR, it is better than the F-15. BVR, F-15C with AESA radar is better.
RockySo its a post-merge dogfight?
Nope. BVR face shots are allowed.
Rockygiven the reliability of early AA missiles, i take the Mirage for its internal 30mm.
A good point, but the F-4 could carry a gun pod.
RockyVersion, rules of engagement, available weapons?
Best version at the time, no rules – each pilot picks his own altitude and airspeed to start the fight, best available weapons at the time.
WVR battle with guns and rear-aspect IR-AAM (result of typical RoE at that time) with F-4C against Mirage III, I would guess equal if not advantage of Mirage III.
Maybe. But you don’t get to take the RHM away, unless you think its so worthless that its dead weight.
If we say equal amount of USD worth of aircraft costs, it will be 2.5 Mriage vs 1 Phantom, if we say equal operational&training costs we have probably more like a 3 Mirage vs 1 Phantom.
Your are taking the single aircraft as the base, but that is flawed. Most pilots of the 1960s would trade in their radar or BVR weapons for a wing man 95% of the time.
The F-4 has more range and a bigger bombload and a far better radar. It can do things that the Mirage can’t. And if you are flying off of a carrier, you can only park so many jets on the deck. And a Mirage can’t fly off of a carrier.
From the first post:
what aircraft could claim to be the world’s best air superiority fighters? Give no consideration for cost effectiveness, just what aircraft prevails against its opposition.
RockyDividing the performance by the price, yes, the Mirage was much better than the F-4. For a given amount of USD an air force could afford much more Mirage. BVR and Sparrow were even more expensive then than today. And unreliable. Pretty much sunk costs.
For fighter to fighter combat the Sparrow was of no advantage in the 60ies. Hence you should rate the F-4 for its ability to win turning fights with rear-aspect IR-AAM (F-4B/C/D) and gun (E). Until arrival of the F-4E slatted, this ability was severely limited. An F-4F with AIM-9L is a completely different weapon system and would win 10-1 against F-4B of 1963 in WVR conditions.
If I need to choose a fighter in 1960s, I would go for the Mirage.
The Sparrow did have a very high failure rate, but it did account for a very large fraction of the kills that the F-4 made over Vietnam. It allows you to make shots that you couldn’t make with a IRH missile, especially if all aspect IRH technology is not available. If it isn’t shot in the face with a Sparrow, the Mirage will have the advantage on the first turn, but after that it will bleed off all its energy. I think the Sparrow, the superior radar, the second crew member, and the higher sustained turn rate and climb rate give the F-4 the overall advantage. The F-4 also has more combat persistence. But if the F-4 got slow, the Mirage would prevail.
RockyWhat exactly is your criteria ? Success against an ennemy ? Kills ?
By say 1965 to 70, had the F-4 shot more MiGs/Sukhois than the Mirage ?
The one that lands on its tires, vs the one that is a smoking hole in the ground.
F-4 vs Mirage, head to head, 1v1, pilots of equal ability, which jet will be the most likely to be shot down?
Rockyfrom 1971 to 1975 the West had nothing to intercept a MiG-25 in air to air and certainly the MiG-25 can kill F-4s.
The MiG-25 is better than an F-4 BVR, but if the F-4 stays low, the MiG-25 will not be able to get a shot. If the MiG-25 came down after the F-4, the F-4 would have the advantage. The MiG-25 could do well by refusing to fight unless it had the advantage, but it will have a very hard time stopping an F-4 on the deck, dropping bombs on the MiG-25’s hanger.
If by 1975 or 1976 the West did put in operational service a better fighter in this case the F-15 it is another thing.
The F-14A was far better WVR and BVR in 1974.
The MiG-23M is more or less as good as the F-4E slightly more agile at some transonic speeds and cheaper, but its reign was very brief by 1977 the F-15 took command of the situation.
And the F-14A before that, but that was another thread. 😀
The Gripen definitively is better than the F-15 it has data links that will allow it to beat the F-15 even if it has a shorter range radar in my humble opinoin the Gripen was better
GCI can tell the Gripen where the F-15 is, but the F-15 will still be able to fire first.
RockyI differ with you from the 1971 to 1975 the best fighter was the MiG-25 Foxbat. It was better than any thing the west had.
Everything the west had was better than the MiG-25. The MiG-25 could avoid combat by staying high and fast, (until the F-14 came along) but it had no look down / shoot down capability. WVR, anything would fly circles around it. The MiG-25 was a good intercepter, but a poor fighter.
And for a brief period from 1972 to 1975 the MiG-23M was an oustanding aircraft much better than the F-4E as a tactical fighter
The MiG-23M was fast, but it had very poor agility. The second crew member in the F-4 was another advantage.
From 1992 to 2006 it was not the F-15C, since 1997 the Gripen entered service and we can say the Gripen is far more agile than the F-15 and has more modern avionics.
The Gripen is like an F-16. Excellent WVR, but the F-15 has a much more powerful radar, and will get the first shot.
RockyI’d add the Gripen from 1997 to 2007 and the Swiss and Suomi Hornets for about the same timespan.
And of course the correct time for the F-15 is from 1975 to 2035
So there were three best fighters from 1997 to 2007??? :confused:
and btw, this thread is rather pointless.
Perhaps you don’t get the point. :rolleyes:
RockyAside from pure speed, would you prefer a Meteor (or P-80..so I’m not accused of basicing the UK jet) or a developed piston plane if you had to fight FW-190s, Bf-109s and the occasional Me-262 in late 1945?
Aside for speed, no. But 600 mph was a lot of speed in 1945.
RockyI would say it should be the P-80/F-80 instead of the Meteor. and instead of F-15C it should’ve been F-14D
I considered the F-80. The Meteor was at least as fast, and it had a higher rate of climb. I can’t say about turn rate. Why did you prefer the F-80?
The F-14D is interesting. Did you pick it for having the first shot with a Phoenix, or was the radar more advanced? WVR, the F-15C rules, unless the airspeed gets too low.
RockyI cant see why the F22 is listed as the best from 07 onwards as they are still not yet in service fully and serviceable. I would go for the FA18 EF.
The F-18E is a slow, low energy POS. An F-15C with AESA would beat it.
Sign In
