Combat stats for all aircraft currently in use

[Gary Brantley]

I came across this article by chance and found it quite interesting.   It's the sort of thing aircraft boffins and history nerds (like me!) find intriguing I think.  It's a chart/list of the combat statistics for all aircraft currently in use in the world today.   The stats are air-to-air kills, air-to-air losses and losses to ground fire.   Some of the statistics were rather surprising to me and some were expected.   If nobody objects, here's the link to the article:

 

https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use/

[dov]

Interesting.

 

Summery of A-A kills 

 

F-16 Falcon 76-1-5                          

F-15A/C/I/S Eagle 102-0-0

F-15E Strike Eagle 1-0-3

F/A-18 Hornet 2-1-1

F-14 Tomcat 135-4-41

F-4 Phantom 306-106-545

Mirage 2000 1-0-1

Sea Harrier 21-0-3

Mirage F.1 24-43-20

F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger 25-23

 

693 AA kills 178 AA losses  sum 871 

 

MiG-21 240-501

MiG-23 25-102

MiG-25 8-8-1

MiG-29 6-18-1

Su-27 6-0-2

 

283 AA kills 629 AA losses sum 914

 

My verdict: Training is all. Everyday's training!

 

Happy modelling

 

[wellsprop]

It never occurred to me that the Sea Harrier would be included on the list! But obviously it would

[Gary Brantley]

4 hours ago, wellsprop said:

It never occurred to me that the Sea Harrier would be included on the list! But obviously it would

 

And made a damned good showing for itself too.  21-0-3 ain't a half-bad record I'd say.  🙂

[Giorgio N]

On 2/27/2021 at 10:01 AM, dov said:

My verdict: Training is all. Everyday's training!

 

 

It's not so easy !

Training is sure important but we must ask: training for what ? Training is not the starting point for achieving victory, training is a step that comes before fighting but after a lot of other stuff. There have to be tactics in place, tactics that are developed and tested before being introduced in the training syllabus. There has to be a concept on the use of air power that is then turned into tactics. These tactics have to take into account the technology available and the system in which the single fighter is meant to operate. Only then the pilots will be given things to train on. And of course there has to be a way to have feedback from those who train and will eventually fight into the whole tactics definition process, so that every time the tactics are challenged, verified and, if needed, altered.

Pilots can train as much as they want but if they train for the wrong kind of combat their training will lead to very ineffective results.. unless the "system" behind them can compensate for this in terms of something else, be it numbers or the availability of other components that can force the enemy to accept the fight on such terms.

 

And this brings in another important aspect of air combat (and combat in general): what is the system that the pilot is part of ? How much can this affect the outcome ? Am I fighting supported by awacs or am I totally anaware of the tactical situation because cruise missiles have destroyed my radar systems ? Should I expect to find SAM threats all the way through my mission or have these been destroyed by other assets ? Should I enter dogfight, am I constrained by fuel issues or can I rely on tankers support ? And so on and so on and so on.... Of course numbers are also an important part of the system. Numerical superiority or inferiority will change the way I can fight and I may or not be able to adapt to this.

 

And the system brings in another matter: technology gives an edge ! Training can compensate for some of this but if I send a modern aicraft with better radars, better weapons and better communications, supported by better ground or air based assets against a less modern aircraft the chances are that the superior aircraft will be able to impose the fight on its terms. I can be the best pilot in the world bu tif  someone shoots a couple of missiles at me well before I can even hope of detecting my attacker, my best chance of survival will be my ejection seat.

 

Last but not least: how many of these victories were achieved and how many of these losses were suffered in "symmetrical" situations ? And how many in "asymmetrical" strategic situations ? One thing is fighting against an enemy with similar capabilities and systems (say for example the Indo-Pakistani wars), another is to fight as a large coalition with a huge numerical and technical edge against a single country (like Desert Storm). The reality is that all engagements that have involved Western countries in the post-Vietnam era have been in situations of clear advantage and there have never been cases of combat againt opponents with similar capabilities and numbers. While these operations sure gave important indications of the validity or not of certain equipment and tactics, fighting against a peer may well bring different results.

 

So yes, training... but training is one part of the story and without the others it is not enough to succeed.

[Bangseat]

19 hours ago, Gary Brantley said:

 

And made a damned good showing for itself too.  21-0-3 ain't a half-bad record I'd say.  🙂

Having just finished reading Harrier 809, definitely a story worth telling. Rowland White would do well to include that stat in his next edition.

[wellsprop]

@Bangseat I have Harrier 809, Sea Harrier over the Falklands (Sharkey Ward) and a Kinetic 1/48 Sea Harrier - looking forward to the build!

[Chimpion]

I was actually shocked to see such high totals. Most recent conflicts don't seem to have involved that much air-to-air combat. Current US strategy at least seems to be to destroy the enemy air capability with cruise missiles before sending in the planes.

[dov]

Oh you are right! Giorgio, very right.

 

In my mind's eye I see all the past decades of the Israeli airspace.

Nothing else is in my mind. I see training only of flying in my statement, nothing more.

As in athletics. If you are able to run at all weather conditions and in all seasons, you are capable for a competition.

Otherwise not at all! All the aspects you mention are of high importance. Sure.

In many countries are training limitations. To save flying hours on the a/c.

 

Not to confuse it with any other aspect of training.

 

There are severe restrictions on training in many countries.

Now we are only talking about flight training.

 

Exertion of the aircraft within well below the flying envelope in order to stretch the lifetime of the a/c as far as possible.

Avoid bad weather flights to minimize the risk of accidents.

When I say flying only, so do I mean it. I saw too much, when professional pilots lacked experience.

No matter, if it is an airline or an air force.

If you can really fly, in all flight positions, and enjoy it, then you are on the right track.

Many pilots shy away from acrobatics, also because many do not understand how to acrobatic works.

It's the craft that counts.

Many pilots are shy to pull high G, because they feel uncomfortable.

 

The same matter of shyness you have in navigation. Seldom you find a pilot who likes it!

[Filbert_Wang]

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting. You have a typo in the Tomcat stats by the way, should be 4 lost to ground fire (thought that seemed very high!)

 

Couple of quite interesting stats there that stand out 

- How much use the Tomcat ended up getting in the Middle East vs usage in the US! They should have made Top Gun 2 about that

I am not surprised at all about the efficacy of that aircraft however; I read about how fairly recently Iran was trialling some fairly new Chinese fighters (MIG-derivatives) who had trouble keeping up with their existing F14s.

- Are we sure how accurate some of these stats are? I thought the UK definitely lost Tornados to ground fire during Desert Storm. Also, there was that video recording of F16 dodging SAM missiles and several other aircraft were lost in that sortie. Therefore is that figure of 5 too low for the F16?

 

Really interesting comment from @Giorgio N also - how important tactics, training, radar technology, and whether the combat is symmetrical, vs the actual efficacy of the aircraft itself. 

[spruecutter96]

I appreciate that it's not an air-to-air fighter, but could we have some stats for the Fairchild A-10? I know there have been some ground-to-air losses involving the 'Hog, but have no idea how many.

 

Chris. 

[Slater]

Considering how widely they were used, I wonder if there were any "F-5 vs F-5" or "F-104 vs F-104" engagements?

[spruecutter96]

I'm not aware of any hot, steamy "Starfighter-on-Starfighter" action, but I definitely not an expert on these matters. I think I read years ago that the Israelis and the Egyptians both used Spitfires in dogfights with their opponents, just after the Second World War.    

 

Chris. 

[dov]

It is better, that many types never were usede in action.

On the other hand, designers did not learn enough.

On the other side, if aircraft were used in action, it just to ask about the capability of the pilots.

Was the aircraft good or the pilot?

Who won?

The better pilot? The better plane?

Or the worse plane with a good pilot?

Or the good plane with a worse pilot?

Also the best planes are flown by low level pilots!

As much as I know, the Starfighter in Vietnam could not stand on their on legs, when armed.

It sank and set on the belly. Poor look!

Happy modelling

[alt-92]

1 hour ago, dov said:

As much as I know, the Starfighter in Vietnam could not stand on their on legs, when armed.

It sank and set on the belly. Poor look!

I would firmly put that to lala-land, to be honest. Unless you're speaking metaphorically. Maybe.

[iainpeden]

I'd like to see figures for the Gnats the Indians used in the Indo-Pakistan war - I believe they made short shrift of the Pakistani Sabres.

[dov]

To alt-92:

In the journal Flightpath I saw it several years a picture. Together with the toilett under the wing of the Skyraider.

Funny, was it..

[alt-92]

Yes, and C-141s fly by flapping their wings  

Here 's one at rest:

[Graham Boak]

19 hours ago, iainpeden said:

I'd like to see figures for the Gnats the Indians used in the Indo-Pakistan war - I believe they made short shrift of the Pakistani Sabres.

Lala land again (thanks for the phrase).  The Pakistani version is very different.  Not that overclaiming, both "genuine" and propaganda, is something unique to the sub-continent.

[alt-92]

You should see the comment section on some re-enactments from a popular DCS sim channel (GR)