The Last Gunslinger
The F-15C is the only dedicated dogfighter left in the U.S. military fleet. Why isn't the Air Force replacing it?
- By Michael Behar
- Air & Space magazine, July 2010
Over its 35-year career, the F-15C (here on a training mission over the Pacific Ocean) remains the air combat champ, with 104 victories and no losses.
USAF/MASTER SGT MAURICE KRAUSE
(Page 3 of 4)
A number of features make the F-15C an ideal dogfighter. With a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1:1, it is one of the few fighters with that power advantage, so it can accelerate during a vertical climb. And the large lifting surface of the fuselage enables the Eagle to keep flying even with a lot of battle damage.
The Eagle also blends a computerized system with old-fashioned manual controls. Other fighters, particularly the F-22, are pure fly-by-wire. In the F-15C, say its pilots, a pilot can override his computer warnings and go beyond the edge to get that little bit of boost to survive. In the F-22, the computer system simply won’t allow that, as it thinks the airplane will break up in flight—not good when you’re in the midst of a dogfight and need to execute tactical maneuvers.
Major David Skalicky, leader of the F-22 Aerial Demonstration Team, and a former F-15C pilot, disputes the F-15C pilots’ claim of an advantage. “The F-22 will aerodynamically out-perform and out-power the F-15 in every scenario,” says Skalicky. “That isn’t to say that on exceptionally rare occasions, F-22 pilots haven’t lost to F-15 pilots in practice dogfights due to poor maneuver selection. However, the credit for victory in that scenario belongs to the F-15 pilot, not the airframe.”
The majority of active-duty Eagle pilots flying today were born after the aircraft went into service. So to find out if anyone expected the F-15 to remain a viable dogfighter for more than a quarter-century, I tracked down those who designed and built it. They gather every three years for a reunion on the anniversary of the F-15’s inaugural flight. Donn Byrnes, who flew F-86 Sabres and F-84 Thunderjets in the 1950s and later spent six years on the Air Force side of the team designing and developing the SR-71 Blackbird, was the system program office project manager for the F-15 airframe. He got involved with the Eagle program in 1969, coordinating with McDonnell Douglas engineers during the early blueprint stages, and stayed through mid-1975.
The 78-year-old retired colonel is panting when I reach him by telephone at his home in Los Lunas, New Mexico. “Sorry, I just hauled in a cord of firewood,” explains Byrnes, who wrote the book Air Superiority Blue, a retelling of the Eagle’s birth. I ask Byrnes what spawned the sudden demand for an air superiority fighter, something the Air Force hadn’t shown an interest in since it procured the P-51 Mustang in 1940. “We had our tail feathers burned off in Vietnam by the MiG-19, and if we went to war with Russia, we would be in deep trouble,” he says. “So we wanted to put together a machine that when fitted with a skillful pilot, who is aggressive and courageous, would have the ability to turn and burn and kill whatever he comes across.”
Byrnes agrees with most Eagle pilots that the F-15’s longevity is a direct result of its singular mission. “We designed the F-15 to do what we wanted it to do, and nothing else.” Byrnes is a critic of the multi-role concept: “You don’t want to make an airplane be the Swiss Army knife of a fighter,” he says. “I’m absolutely not in love with the idea. The F-35 is the worst nightmare of hardware idiocy. It does everything wrong. You need a long-legged fighter, not a short, fat one.”
Byrnes credits chief Air Force engineer Frederick Rall for championing the F-15’s robust and redundant design. “His mantra was: The first failure can’t kill you, and that the only failure we could define that you could not recover from was the stick busting off in the cockpit.” Consider the story of Israeli F-15 pilot Zivi Nedivi, who during a training exercise in 1983 hit and destroyed an A-4 Skyhawk. The collision sheared off all but two feet of Nedivi’s right wing. He punched the afterburners to generate lift over the fuselage and managed to land.
The Air Force purchased its last F-15 in 2001, and the 499 Eagles that remain in the fleet (C, D, and E models) are, on average, 20 years old. Meanwhile, foreign sales, mainly to Singapore and South Korea, could keep manufacturing plants at Boeing chugging along for at least another few years. “Given the end of the F-22 program, if force structure begins to look really bad, the Air Force could buy a few more F-15s,” says Richard Aboulafia, vice president of the Teal Group, a military consulting firm in Fairfax, Virginia. “Every day the line stays open, it keeps alive that chance.” A new prototype, the F-15 Silent Eagle, has a stealthy, radar-absorbent coating. “Singapore and South Korea are getting planes that are extremely capable, with the latest systems and sensors,” says Aboulafia.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »





Comments (18)
This article is a bit misleading. For instance the claim that f15c pilots will have the advantage over pilots flying multi role fighters because the F15c program specializes in air warfare ignores the fact that there may very well be dedicated air to air F22 squadrons formed if the need is there. Theres nothing wrong with F22's airframe for dogfighting so the claim that all F22 squadrons will all be multi role squadrons with no dedicated anti air elements is a strawman argument.
Posted by Dbop on May 23,2010 | 01:50 AM
I recently saw the F-15E and F-22 perform at the March ARB Airshow in California. The F-22 did amazing things: stall turns, tail slides, things that a jet shouldn't be able to do. The F-15E did a great performance as well, and since I've been watching F-15s since I was 5 years old, maybe I'm biased. Both are amazing expressions of American ingenuity and dedication to producing the best aircraft we can produce.
A key difference, as I see it, is that the F-15 looks the part even when sitting still on the ground. It looks like a fighter should. You can't take an unflattering photo of an F-15. That chin on the F-22...a fighter shouldn't have jowls. I think the thrust vectoring was added to distract from the front half.
All the ink in the world about the F-22's promise doesn't carry the same weight as my next five keystrokes below:
104-0
I do wish F-22 drivers all the success in the world when they get their chances. But if I ever had a choice between a ride in an F-15 and a (modified) F-22, the Eagle wins hands down (someone, please, make me prove that!)
Posted by Jim Herries on May 26,2010 | 02:15 AM
The battlefields of the last four decades have hardly required much in the way of air dominance. While the air-to-air mission will remain, it is silly to continue planning for WWII, the only war that has had the vast aerial conflicts that we always seem to be pining for. Like it or not, America’s conflicts are usually just like the ones we’re fighting now, and the pure air-to-air mission is negligible.
Clearly, fighter pilots still have that special ability to pat themselves on the back while answering any question. While Eagle pilots may be opting out of the future, plenty more will come along to adapt and exploit the capabilities of the F-22, and advance war fighting once again. They’ll be fighter pilots too.
Posted by Jay on June 2,2010 | 09:40 AM
History repeats itself.
Before Vietnam, the progressive thinking was that guns and dogfighting skills were obsolete. New wars would be fought with missiles and electronics from great distances. The latest fighters such as the big F4 Phantom were equipped solely with missiles. US pilots got a rude awakening when supposedly inferior but surprisingly nimble and well armed Mig-17s gave them a bunch of trouble and loss to kill ratios plummeted. It took dogfight schools such as Nellis and Mirimar to put the US back on top. And since then every fighter gets a gun.
Posted by dave on June 2,2010 | 07:00 PM
I hope Leestma gets a UAV and eats his own words.
Posted by Brad on June 6,2010 | 04:00 PM
I want to know if i can have a copy of the June-July Air & space pag.38-39 for mounting or have it made for display.The foto of the last Gunslinger by Sgt.Maurice Krause. EDITORS' REPLY: We aren't able to furnish reproductions of photographs. You can contact the USAF public affairs office (the Air Force owns the rights to that photograph) and ask about the availability of a print. Describe it to them and tell them the name of the photogapher.
Posted by Angel Garcia on June 9,2010 | 04:44 PM
Oh please. The F-22 is a multi-role fighter on paper only. It IS the direct replacement for the F-15, period. Claiming it's not an effective air superiority fighter is being disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst.
Posted by Guy on June 11,2010 | 11:28 AM
Dave is 100%. . . History WILL repeat itself! Stealth and all the electronic wizardry, is less useful than a rock when face to face with guns in the Sky. We can only hope the Guard can hang on to the F-15 long enough, surely we'll need be needing them again.
As with Big Corporations, the Military Brass and the politicians seem to loose sight of those on the front line that do the 'work' and turn a deaf ear to common sense and logic.
Posted by KZMIke on June 26,2010 | 01:31 PM
Aloha...
Viet Nam Era Vet 69 or 70 - 74, not there. Loved the F-4s & would love to see the F15s but most fly high past Maui. Mahalo,
E A W
Posted by . .- .-- on June 28,2010 | 06:27 PM
Early in the Vietnam war it was decided that aerial dog fighting was obsolete. And so the Attack aircraft didn't have any guns.
This was obviously a tremendous mistake as they had to bring in dog fighting aircraft later on.
I just hope they aren't making the same mistake with the F-15.
Posted by Louis Steiner on July 4,2010 | 05:03 PM
The article is very misleading...
Even with envelope protection the F-22 will outperform the F-15 in every respect, even if the F-15 pilot is deliberately exceeding the aircraft's limits. The same is true of a large number of modern fly-by-wire aircraft. They are simply lighter, more powerful, and more agile despite their multirole design.
Today missiles are finally living up to their pre-vietnam potential and if you look at the history of F-15 kills over the past 20 years the overwhelming majority of engagements were successful due to superior technology and strategy and were not the furballs that make for good television. Even the F-15's predecessor - the F-4 Phantom with a modern fire control system and modern missiles would be a similarly formidable platform.
Posted by Alex on July 8,2010 | 09:47 AM
The F-15 is not the longest-running continually produced fighter airframe. The Mig-21 was first produced in 1959 and continues in production today in China as the Guizhou JL-9. The basic Mig-21 airframe was in production from 1959-2008.
Posted by Alex on July 8,2010 | 10:27 AM
"By the 1980s, McDonnell Douglas engineers had gained enough space in the forward fuselage to add a second seat for the F-15E model..." ?
There were two-seat F-15s already in service, the B and D models, many years before the E. In fact the prototype E model was originally a D.
As for the air superiority role, the F-22 is billed as an "Air Dominance" fighter. In exercise after exercise where the F-22 is pitted against all other jets, theres just no contest. the F-22 wins handily every time.
About the comment that there's just so much information in an F-22 for a pilot to process compared to an F-15, the "sensor fusion" technology of the advanced displays is just so advanced that its a lot easier to maintain situational awareness in an F-22 compared to any other jet. Its the F-15 that suffers from information clutter by comparison.
The F-15 is one of the greatest fighters ever, without question. Nostalgia has its place. But one has to move on. Even the F-22 will one day be rendered obsolete by a robotic fighter, and we have to accept that, too.
For now, it's the relative cheapness and availability of the Eagle against mostly inferior threats that has kept it a viable platform. There will never be more than a handful of F-22s, as fantastic as they are.
Posted by MarcusM on July 10,2010 | 09:18 PM
An interview on Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4311433) disagrees with some of the points made in this article.
I think the F15C veterans lament is really about the type of training F22 pilots are likely to receive. They would much rather these new pilots are still trained in the same way they are, so that if ever we are faced with a scenario in which the F22 does not win with its stealth (and I believe the Russians are developing new optics-based detection, as a sort of answer to America's radar stealth superiority), the pilot would still know how to win using maneuverability.
The difficult part might be in how to actually do that sort of training. Perhaps build a non-stealth version of the F22 specifically as a trainer?
Posted by Stewie on August 8,2010 | 05:09 AM
Gates is the problem. He knows what is needed to maintain air superiority, yet he denies it. What will be needed is 150 F-15SE's with its multifunction capability the present F-15's have.
Posted by James Goodwin on August 8,2010 | 11:02 AM
Love the pics of the f-15 Eagles/// To me, the Eagles are the best, and i like it when i can get more pice of them... thanks...
the pics are great, but not enough for an Eagle lover, like myself...
more pics, please.. thansk.
shirley Rich
shirleyrich74@yahoo.com
Posted by Shirley Rich on September 15,2010 | 11:32 PM
The F-15C has given us "multi-role" fighters the ability to do our job, i.e. bombs on target, in a single threat arena, i.e. worry about the air-to-ground threat only. The fact that we don't lose aircraft to air-to-air threats when we go do OUR job is an indicator of how successful they were. It sucks to be retired at the top of your game; but the F-22 is the next evolution of air-to-air fighter, and you need to adapt or be lost in the shuffle.
Do we need F-22s? The fiscal cost can be measured, but why don't you ask the guys who flew in the onset of WWII in inferior fighters and suffered unacceptable losses as a result. Hard to put a price on human life, as much as our politicians try...after all its not their life.
F-15E WSO
Posted by Dobs on November 11,2010 | 08:36 AM
Very good article from a literary point of view, but from a military point of view it is almost laughable. As a Naval Aviator, I can tell you that the Navy and Marines adopted the multi-mission aircraft mentality long before the Air Force. The Navy saw the tidal wave of technology impending which allows enemies to employ versatile, mobile defenses instead of monolithic, large-scale air forces. (It also did not take a scholar to see that when the USSR fell, few if any other countries could afford to maintain and train formidable air forces). If LtCol McGeorge really beilieves F15s are going away because of their past success in creating air superiority, ask him hom many combat kills the F-15C actually has? No, I suspect the Air Force is finally tired of paying for obselesence.
Posted by John M Geragotelis on November 17,2010 | 02:50 PM