Interesting Gulf War Statistic

[Vermillion]

I was watching a show on Discovery over the weekend, and I heard a statistic that I thought might interest some people.

Out of the 38 total air to air kills in the Gulf War, 33 kills were claimed by F-15 Eagles of various nationalities. Most of these were within the first 3 days.

I didn't realize that F-15's had such a large percentage of the total.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Toad]

Well, it was primarily the Eagles that got the air superiority tasking, didn't they?

Might just be a factor of being the "designated shooters".

Not that it isn't a great airplane.

[Ripsnort]

Wasn't there some Saudi pilot that had a 'double' one day as well?

Not much of an airwar when one side is simply fleeing to Iran with A/C....

Runstangs?  

[MiG Eater]

I spoke with a Tomcat pilot shortly after the war about the air taskings.  The AWACS and F-15C pairings and their in-country operations over active Iraqi bases gave them the greatest chances at engaging Iraqi fighters. Their sole purpose was to clense the airspace.  Other aircraft were left to the escort and BARCAP roles.  A great many Navy aircraft (E-2's, F-14's, etc.) were tasked with a fleet defense, effectively taking them away from the action.  This F-14 pilot complained about many long boring flights.

The Saudi kills on the Mirage F-1's were as much a political decision as a tactical decision.  USAF F-15's, Saudi F-15's and F-14's had all intercepted the two F-1's but the opportunity for the kills was given to the Saudi flight.  Almost purely a PR play as the two Mirages had nowhere to go.

Despite this great success, it seems like a very low number considering the 600+ airplanes that Iraq had in its inventory.  IMO - The Iraqi pilots that attempted to fight were either extraordinarily brave or incredibly naive to the potential danger.

The Iraqis did score one kill, however.  On the opening night of the war a MiG-25 shot down an F/A-18.  That was the airplane flown by Cdr. Speicher.

MiG

[Ripsnort]

Yep, figured as much on the political kills, Mig.. thks for additional info. <S>

[Karnak]

Mind you, just because they were political doesn't mean that they had to feed the Mirage's to him extra careful.  The Saudi pilot did his job professionally and when told to fire he did, just like our guys would have had they gotten the word to fire.

By saying it was political you were kind of insuating that we had to set the situation up for the Saudi.  The situation was no more set up for him than it would have been for our F-15s or F-14s that were in position to shoot the Mirages.

My point is that all three groups were in position and any of them was just as capable of doing what was required.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Sisu
-Karnak

[Toad]

You need to talk to some of the guys that were up during that incident. "Spoon fed" doesn't begin to cover it.

[jedi]

Hehe toss in the Israeli totals from the 80s and it's even more lopsided.

That plane is a meat grinder.  Not unbeatable, but unless you design tactics specifically aimed at defeating it (and its supporting systems), you'd be better off staying on the ground.

IMO it was given the lion's share of the AtA duties because the Navy planes were "irreplaceable" in their specialized duties of fleet defense and seaborne attack, while the Eagles were "pure" air superiority planes (a role neither the Hornet nor the Tomcat is "best" at).  Wouldn't make much sense to lose a destroyer to some Iraqi Exocet attack because the Tomcats were off suppressing MiG-29s, or lose the mud-moving tonnage of the Hornets in order to have "excess" CAP.

And of course the Iraqi AF never really came out to "play" in numbers either.  I was pretty surprised Hussein didn't make an all-out effort to sink a ship (any ship) at some point.  Talk about a "high value" public opinion target...




------------------

[StSanta]

F-15's are mean suckers.

How do they do when fighting F-16's in dogfights, assuming both are loaded for a2a? I'd guess it has more thrust to weight?

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch

[Animal]

F-15 has amazing thrust, and it can pull enough g's to rip itself apart.

It has amazin thrust. It can even lift the whole FDB squad, INCLUDING Gordo.

[bloom25]

The f15 is a brute force fighter plane.  It uses the exact same engine as the f16, but has 2 of them.  My guess is the f16 can turn better, but the f15 has superior thrust to weight and avionics.  The f15 is probably superior.

I saw one of them take off at an airshow ... and climb straight up to 20k.    That thing is LOUD with the afterburners lit.

If I'm not mistaken the f15 still has a perfect air to air record.  (It hasn't been shot down in a dogfight.)



------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

[Nash]

Hey Toad - are you at liberty to elaborate on that? Even a little?

Sounds like it would be a pretty interesting read.

Sincerely.

[Toad]

Nash, sorry, no.

I used to be in an RC-135 unit and I still chat with them.  

I fly with Guard/Reserve guys that were airborne in fighters when it happened.

But...officially, "no comment".

[-towd_]

so you had need to know in a security situation or the guys just leaked it to you and you wont leak it further lol. love to see you justify that or have they totaly changed security in the military ? bla bla bla but i cant tell you insinuation without confirmation is known as roadkill

[-towd_]

p.s. was listening on the open channel when it happened . even that is suposedly classified . get a life toad