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.

But that is just a mockup. I don’t think an ejector launch capable ASRAAM exists currently neither does the trapeze rail launcher. ASRAAM (and AIM-9) are external only for the time being.

Yes, block 3F integration of the Asraam is external only. That is the current plan. Whether there will be a modification to allow internal carriage in the foreseeable future? That would probably be reliant on UK and others funding it, so as with the aim-9x, probably not.

Let’s correct a few misapprehensions around here.

First of all, Steinitz is Minister of Intelligence, so I think we can safely assume that his clearances are higher than those of Aviation Week’s journos. He is also no dummy and a combat-wounded veteran.
We don’t know what points he was using AvWeek to support, but it is a reasonable assumption that he was doing so to provide unclass corroboration.
Second, anyone who spouts guff about how armed forces are always right about their choices and then blabbers sentimental tosh about their being the people “who send men and women in harm’s way” needs to read history. It was the professionals who wanted XB-70, TSR2, P1154, Future Combat System and a fleet of DDG-1000s, to name but a few.

Steinitz’s belief appears to be that the F-35 is eating too much money for what it is worth, both with regard to developing direct countermeasures and Israel’s other needs (such as billions for a counter-tunnel system and the continuing demands of missile defense). Making such strategic choices is above the AF level.

Third, it matters not a flying fig how many gigs of F-35 data you have. If you have not sought and received access to high-level information on alternatives you are still incapable of making an informed choice. Canada did not do this at all before 2010.

Yes, let’s clear up some misapprehensions:

Steinitz, as Intelligence and Atomic Energy minister, is NOT the head of Israeli military intelligence. That means that neither Aman nor Mossad answer to him-those are military positions and answer to the Prime Minister, as you well should know. For all we know, he could very well be basing his opinions on editorials and opinion pieces from AvWeek. What we do know is that the defense minister, and those in the IAF are pushing for two full squadrons of F-35 (based on their knowledge of the aircraft, and the needs of their branch). And so I would ask you, who is in a better position to make an informed decision over the purchase of the aircraft based solely on the requirements of the IAF?

As for reading into military history, I’m on quite firm ground on that point, thank you. I’m not some mindless rube to be bullied and sniped at with snarky comments, as you like to do with anyone who disagrees with you opinion. For every example of the armed forces erring in developing and fielding new weapons, you have the counterpoint of civilian leadership ignoring the requirements, equipment needs of military branches to equally disastrous ends. How do we judge the decision of Gates to truncate the F-22 program? He and Rumsfeld both ignored the recommendations of the Air Force to the extent of breaking careers over those who spoke out. Whatever seemingly sound basis he used to justify his actions, there has been a cascade of consequences impacting the USAF.

Now, if you want to change the discussion to one of “would that money be better spent elsewhere”, considering the current threats and needs of Israel, I would agree. Israel spending it’s entire U.S. grant on one program neglects it’s current needs in regard to the asymmetric threats it faces. That however, was not the point being made by poster I rebutted now was it?

It’s not naive and i am not getting drawn into a Russia versus the west debate. I am also aware that Russia has precision weapons.

The FAE in question have been used to depopulate urban areas in the past as well as the hidden underground targets they were designed for.

By the way I am talking about a Western perspective, and not comparing the US with Russia. We shall have to wait and see how these rockets are used. Given the lack of an Iraqi airforce, is it the case that they are effectively taking the place of air strikes I wonder?

FAE are a particularly nasty weapon. Considering the banning of cluster munitions (which the U.S. is not a signatory of, nor is Russia) nor the considered ban on FAE, FAE are brutal in their area effects. At the same time that the U.S. and others are engaging in developing SDB-II and similar weapons to limit collateral damage, we have the MOAB and FOAB which have the opposite, and indiscriminant damage to a wide area.

There is no advantage to Iraq using these weapons against the ISIS, it would be better for the western nations and Russia to provide guided weapons to the air force, they are using these in their own country (in some cases against Sunni tribal factions which are by and large Iraqi).

There is a limit to what the Iraqi air force can do without support from outside, arming the IqAF with wide area munitions will only exacerbate what is, and will remain a bad situation.

@ FBW
so, that document is, according to itself a personal view of the authors, but not necessarily a reality

Edit: er, somehow it seem sthat several posts weren’t displayed when I answered ^^

Never claimed it was official document, I included it for Jay as he seems a bit confused as to the how, when, why of Canada’s involvement in the F-35.

On a side note, it is an interesting read and not entirely complimentary of the F-35. It does, however, give a good summary of the pros and cons of Canada’s participation ( keeping in mind the author’s have no more access to the program than journalists, etc.)

Yet you have negated to mention the FACT that as to this date, CANADA has recieved NO actual information on “Capabilities”,

So perhaps the “Politicians” may or may not be “Briefed” on Capabilities of the F35, yet neither is the Military been offically “Briefed” either.m

I’m sorry but you are not correct. The Canadian military has been briefed on the F-35 and it’s capabilities and testing progress just like all other level 3 partners.

A simple Google would confirm this. Here is an AFA Pdf about Canada’s involvement in the program which would fill you in on some of the backstory:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/digital/pdf/articles/2014-Mar-Apr/F-Lam-Cozzarin.pdf

P.s. It is difficult to read your posts with massive text blocks, run-on sentences, and liberal use of capitalization for no reason. It comes off as rants instead of a reasoned response.

Yes, MOSSAD get all their info from Aviation Week.

So, what flavour of kool-aid would sir like this week? Particularly sour lemonade perhaps?

Dumbest statement of the year candidate?

Hmmmmm, who is more credible: a. a Knesset member who apparently has a subscription to AvWeek, or B. Those in the IAF, a thoroughly respected and professional air force, that is claiming they need two squadrons worth of F-35’s?

Good call there Amiga

I don’t recall. Are you one of the posters who quotes Lockheed Martin as a source? They’re not credible at all. Just think of all the promises re: schedule broken. Again and again and again, for one. I’m much, much more likely to believe what I read from defense-aerospace.com than from lockheedmartin.com Unless you are dumb you don’t set much store by a source that gets it wrong again and again and again.

Sorry, Lockheed is a corporation they have a vested interest in their products. Singling them out for not meeting schedule is a bit ridiculous. The history of Pentagon procurement is littered with broken procurement schedules, the F-35 is just the latest and biggest. POGO is, for all their claims of oversight and impartiality, a lobby with their own interests:
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/letters/2014/pogo-leads-effort-in-support-of-a10-to-ndaa.html
Second, the DoD has set what warfighting capabilities are incorporated into each software block.

Senators worried about their disticts, yes.

…JTACs who truly feel the A-10 is the best aircraft for certain CAS applications… Is there anyone out there who actually believes the A-10 is NOT the best aircraft for certain CAS applications? I’d love to hear what does better.

If you look at the studies from CAS in Afghanistan, the B-1 for starters, then we have the emergence of larger, more capable drones with sensors such as Gorgon stare that have loiter time several times greater than the A-10. The A-10 has value, but the Air force has to weigh what capabilities can be met with existing resources vs. keeping a specialized aircraft in service that may or may not be relevant in future conflicts.

…

and the Air force whose budget woes are forcing leaders to make tough choices… Mmm. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the most expensive project in history – known as JSF – being horribly over budget? Wouldn’t have anything to do with the extra costs resulting from JSF delays forcing life extension costs for some of the types it was due to replace, would it?

I have predicted for years that JSF would result in a reduction in military capability due to budgets being squeezed. I don’t recall any JSF fans on this site agreeing with me… and they still haven’t. But guess who is now saying the same as me – the good old USAF!

I don’t think you needed a crystal ball to predict that the F-35 program was going to force cuts to other programs. The F-22 had the same impact, and the F-15 before that. Every new generation of aircraft has been more expensive to develop and maintain than the previous. I would argue against your “prediction” that this represents a reduction in capability.

Roughly 800 F-15 A-D replaced several thousand F-4, F-102, F-106; 381 F-22 were supposed to replace those 800 odd F-15’s (the reduction to 187 was largely political, the requirement is/was still there). This trend is not unique to the USAF either.