Which is the best air-to-air combat fighter?
Airdrum96
Of all of the modern airplanes,which is the best one in air-to-air combat?
I know that the F-14 is close if not the best at it.Is the F-16 better?
Or the MiG-29? I would relly like to know.
Marcus Chua
It depends. If its BVR, the F-14 and MiG-31 will be the best. In Mid-BVR,
the Su-27, F-22, F-16, F-15, F/A-18, M2000, EF2000 and Rafale would
dominate. For short range with missiles, the MiG-29 and F-16 would shoot
down and other aircraft. For guns, the SU-27, F-16 and MiG-29 is still the
best. But the most important is still the pilot.
For the F-16 and MiG-29, lets take the F-16C Block 50 and MiG-29M. With 2
medium range air-to-air, 2 short range IR., full guns and 1 fuel tank
jettisoned before combat, the MiG-29 would have a better T:W ratio but the
F-16 would accelerate faster and have more maneuvebility. The F-16 can
sustain the fight for a longer period because of its longer range. For long
range combat, the F-16 would most likely emerge as the victor. But in short
range missile combat, the MiG-29 has the edge because of its AA-11 Archer.
In guns range the F-16 would once again win.
In real life combat, the F-16 shot down a MiG-29 in Iraq with AIM-120
AMRAAM. But in mock combats with German MiGs the MiG-29 won because of its
AA-11 but the F-16 out maneuvered the MiGs for guns. Generally speaking,
the Mig-29 is better than the F-16A but not as good as the F-16C. But as
what I said before, the pilot matters most.
--Marcus
Airdrum96 <aird...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970313010...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
FOR7
For close in air to air with equal pilots in capability I would easily say
the F-16 hands down. The best dogfighter ever made so far for production!
Christoph Schlegel
FOR7 <fo...@aol.com> wrote
<19970315085...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
> For close in air to air with equal pilots in capability I would easily
say
> the F-16 hands down. The best dogfighter ever made so far for production!
How much does Lock-Mart pay you man...?
But let's not start this silly crap again, ok? Just way too many
parameters...
best regards,
Christoph
Simun Mikecin
FOR7 (fo...@aol.com) wrote:
: For close in air to air with equal pilots in capability I would easily say
: the F-16 hands down. The best dogfighter ever made so far for production!
What about Su-27?
--
<E-mail: si...@fly.cc.fer.hr >
<2nd E-mail: simun....@fer.hr >
<URL: http://fly.cc.fer.hr/~sime>
AFMSS Robi
The world's undisputed greatest air to air killing machine is the F-15.
The Tom Kitty is underpowered and too big, the F-16's radar is too small
and it doesn't have the gas to fight much beyond the local airfield and it
can't carry much A/A ordinance. If it survives to the merge (unlikely) it
can turn up it's own ass (if it's not carrying anything) but has a
tendency to put its pilots to sleep. It's a fun airplane but I wouldn't
want to go to war in it. The next best is the F-18. Excellent radar, good
turner, and heavily armed. The Mig-29's a strong performer but it's radar
is also weak.
JLAuPage
The best BVR fighter is the one carrying AMRAAM....
The best fighter in close air-to-air combat is the one carrying the
AA-11....We won't survive the merge....
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
MCZAND
I would have to go with the Mig 29. It is apparently more maneuverable
than any US fighter, has more advanced infrared track and targeting, and
can carry an air to air missile far more manueverable than any in the US
inventory or under development.
Jonathan Evered
In article <19970315221...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, AFMSS Robi
<afms...@aol.com> writes
>The world's undisputed greatest air to air killing machine is the F-15.
>The Tom Kitty is underpowered and too big, the F-16's radar is too small
>and it doesn't have the gas to fight much beyond the local airfield and it
>can't carry much A/A ordinance. If it survives to the merge (unlikely) it
>can turn up it's own ass (if it's not carrying anything) but has a
>tendency to put its pilots to sleep. It's a fun airplane but I wouldn't
>want to go to war in it. The next best is the F-18. Excellent radar, good
>turner, and heavily armed. The Mig-29's a strong performer but it's radar
>is also weak.
dogfight. It is the best in the world in the air superiority role.
--
Jonathan
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
PDonen
This is actually a difficult question to answer. Are you talking about US
aircraft, or Aircraft all over the world? Also are you talking about
pure air to air, or in close knife fighting with guns only? Is BVR okay?
Can you include HMCS (Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems) and IR missles with
off boresight capability? Are you talking only of aircraft currently
operational or do you include development and test vehicles? Are you
talking about the average pilot or a pilot with above average skills in
each aircraft? Is the loadout only Air to Air? What altitudes are we
fighting, high or low?
If we are talking about the average Joe military pilot in US aircraft, I
would have to say the F-15C or the F-16 depending on whether you were
using guns only or guns and missiles. However, if one is talking about a
close in knife fight (guns only) with pilots of above average skills who
had truly mastered their mounts in US aircraft I would have to say the
F-14D Tomcat.
If on the other hand we are taking all the worlds aircraft currently
operational in squadron service with pilots of above average skills, it
might be the Mig-29 or SU-27. If we start going very high, well the
French might win out.
See what I mean, tough call.
Joe Barrington
Airdrum96 queried the group:
> Of all of the modern airplanes,which is the best one in air-to-air combat?
> I know that the F-14 is close if not the best at it. Is the F-16 better?
> Or the MiG-29? I would really like to know.
In my humble opinion to your question, I would say that the F-14D Tomcat
is the best fighter in general air to air combat. I am making the
assumption of a 1 v 1 engagement (since we are comparing a fighter vs.
another fighter). What makes the F-14D Tomcat unique is the understated
performance of the AIM-54C+ Phoenix vs fighter sized targets. Now, I am
NOT trying to open up the yearly "can of worms" (pro/con Phoenix), but I
am stating a reasonable fact. The Tomcat has an excellent on station
time/range plus the AIM-54. A normal 2 plane section can deny a very
large portion of airspace to most, if not any, pontential intruder (If
you force the bombers/attackers to dump their stores, its a mission
kill....). A F-14D (2xAIM-9L/M, 2xAIM-7M, 4xAIM-54C+) in a standard 1 v
1 engagement vs., lets say an F-15C (4xAIM-9L/M, 4xAIM-7M), the Tomcat
has a logically BETTER chance of killing the Eagle. Before the
Eagle-driver has a hope of getting a shot off, he would hace to evade 4
Phoenixs (Which gives the Tomcat driver the ability to get his Sparrows
off first). If we are talking about a Falcon, it only gets worse. The
only thing pressing on the horizon to replace the Tomcat/Phoenix combo
is the expected EF2000/LRAAM combo (and this is from a YANK!). There is
no other CURRENT system like it in the world. In saying that, I'm sure
the MiG-31 Foxhound supporters are going to go ape....
Joe B
--------------------------------------------------------
All views expressed are MINE and MINE alone.
UNLESS they are stupid, then it was the result of a
hidden UN Black Helocopter Faction trying to hide
the truth!!
--------------------------------------------------------
To reply via email, remove the "no.junk" before "com"
--------------------------------------------------------
JoeBar...@prodigy.net
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Barrington
Ed Rasimus
mcz...@aol.com (MCZAND) wrote:
And, don't forget to point out it's high kill rate in Cuban airspace.
Those Cessnas can turn on a dime, but they were no match for the MiG.
"Apparently" more maneuverable means little. Range, reliability,
training, versatility, etc. are factors of import.
Infrared track and targeting is nice, but what does that have to do
with dog-fighting? Turn rate/radius, thrust-to-weight, P-sub-S are
where it's at in 1-v-1 after the merge. IR TWS is a player in stealth,
but not much value up close and personal.
And, how many kills does the operational Archer have? Give me a
lip-winder and a Vulcan, but most important, give me a good wingman.
Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
29crosby
I'm not so sure about this. Everything I'v read indicate BVR missile
don't work very well against another figher. Radar Warning Recievers
indicate when someone is looking at you and when he is shooting at you.
At that point you start 'playing' dodge missile. Also, you can buy two
F-16s for the price of on F-15. Finally, According to James Stevenson
"Pentagon Paradox" the F-16 is the longest ranged fighter on internal
fuel of the current generation. "PP" is avery interesting read for what
it has to say about air-to-air combat.
José Herculano
> And, don't forget to point out it's high kill rate in Cuban airspace.
> Those Cessnas can turn on a dime, but they were no match for the MiG.
Think those were missile kills. A gun kill on those push&pulls would indeed
take one hell of a pilot.
> Infrared track and targeting is nice, but what does that have to do
> with dog-fighting? Turn rate/radius, thrust-to-weight, P-sub-S are
> where it's at in 1-v-1 after the merge. IR TWS is a player in stealth,
> but not much value up close and personal.
Absolutely. Good to stalk the prey and get into firing position, but
after that...
> And, how many kills does the operational Archer have? Give me a
> lip-winder and a Vulcan, but most important, give me a good wingman.
;-)
--
José Herculano
Jesse Nadel
Jonathan Evered wrote:
>
> In article <19970315221...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, AFMSS Robi
> <afms...@aol.com> writes
> >The world's undisputed greatest air to air killing machine is the F-15.
> >The Tom Kitty is underpowered and too big, the F-16's radar is too small
> >and it doesn't have the gas to fight much beyond the local airfield and it
> >can't carry much A/A ordinance. If it survives to the merge (unlikely) it
> >can turn up it's own ass (if it's not carrying anything) but has a
> >tendency to put its pilots to sleep. It's a fun airplane but I wouldn't
> >want to go to war in it. The next best is the F-18. Excellent radar, good
> >turner, and heavily armed. The Mig-29's a strong performer but it's radar
> >is also weak.
> I'm with this one. I have no doubt that the F-15 will come out top in a
> dogfight. It is the best in the world in the air superiority role.
> --
> Jonathan
Let's not get too carries away with this. F-15's are great airplanes,
and I won't try to deny this, but a few corrections are in order.
F-16's have pretty long legs. Remember, they're long enough to go to
Baghdad from Israel with external weapons and no tanker support. Fact.
As for the radar range, it's a lot longer than AMRAAM range for all the
fighters you listed, so it's enough to find the enemy and track him long
before you get to hitting range, so what's the point?
Seems to me like a lot of F-16's have survived the merge in real combat,
so I don't know where you're coming from. Besides, if you can turn up
your ass and the other guy can't, this might be an advantage.
The point about putting the pilots to sleep is so far out there that I
don't even know how to address it.
6 Aim-120's and cannon ammo seems like a considerable AA armament to me.
Jesse
Robert Virding
In article <19970315085...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com (FOR7) writes:
>For close in air to air with equal pilots in capability I would easily say
>the F-16 hands down. The best dogfighter ever made so far for production!
In a similar discussion a few years back someone mentioned that in Red
Flag (?) tests Harriers were getting 4-1 kill ratios on F-16s. This
was inside BVR as Harriers did not have BVR capabilities then. (Do
they now?)
Of course this was netinfo and I have no way of knowing if it is to be
believed.
--
Robert Virding Tel: +46 (0)8 719 95 28
Computer Science Laboratory Email: r...@erix.ericsson.se
Ericsson Telecom AB
S-126 25 ÄLVSJÖ, SWEDEN
WWW: http://www.ericsson.se/cslab/~rv
"Folk säger att jag inte bryr mig om någonting, men det skiter jag i".
Matthew Saroff
FOR7 (fo...@aol.com) wrote:
: For close in air to air with equal pilots in capability I would easily say
: the F-16 hands down. The best dogfighter ever made so far for production!
Where is this engagement occurring? At what speed? At higher
altitudes, the F-15 might do better. at lower altitudes, the F-16, and
down on the deck at Mach .99 I'd probably want the F-104.
--
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana, cocaine,
cia,plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
msa...@REMOVE.THIS.ANTI-SPAM.SHIELD.TO.REPLY.pobox.com.
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Christian E. Villada
The best air-to-air combat fighter is the one that fights in the same side
that the AWACS. The AMRAAM is the other key, the rest is almost irrelevant.
Stephen E. Wood
For me...I'll keep my Eagle...keep it high, keep the mach up....and come
home every time....
Steve, USAF Pilot
Matthew Saroff <msa...@moose.erie.net> wrote in article
<5gjrcl$3...@news.erie.net>...
Jim
In article <mTWQLSAh...@green-leas.demon.co.uk>,
Jona...@green-leas.demon.co.uk says...
>
>In article <19970315221...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, AFMSS Robi
><afms...@aol.com> writes
>>The world's undisputed greatest air to air killing machine is the F-15.
>>The Tom Kitty is underpowered and too big, the F-16's radar is too small
>>and it doesn't have the gas to fight much beyond the local airfield and it
>>can't carry much A/A ordinance. If it survives to the merge (unlikely) it
>>can turn up it's own ass (if it's not carrying anything) but has a
>>tendency to put its pilots to sleep. It's a fun airplane but I wouldn't
>>want to go to war in it. The next best is the F-18. Excellent radar, good
>>turner, and heavily armed. The Mig-29's a strong performer but it's radar
>>is also weak.
>I'm with this one. I have no doubt that the F-15 will come out top in a
>dogfight. It is the best in the world in the air superiority role.
>
It has been proven time and again, that the final deciding factor is the guy in
the seat.You can field the most advanced aircraft but if your pilots aren't up
to the task, then you lose.
Jim
marcus Guastafsson
Stephen E. Wood wrote:
>
> For me...I'll keep my Eagle...keep it high, keep the mach up....and come
> home every time....
>
> Steve, USAF Pilot
Marcus Gustafsson
kms9...@mds.mdh.se
kid...@aol.com
>>I'm with this one. I have no doubt that the F-15 will come out top in a
>>dogfight. It is the best in the world in the air superiority role.
>>
>I agree with the above to a limited degree.
>It has been proven time and again, that the final deciding factor is the guy
>in
>the seat.You can field the most advanced aircraft but if your pilots aren't
>up
>to the task, then you lose.
Not my first hand experience but I am told that RN Sea Harrier FA2 with the AMRAAM is not touched. However the range and speed being the downside.
Bruffy.....Kiddala
john...@tafensw.edu.au
On 17 Mar 1997 14:13:35 GMT, r...@erix.ericsson.se (Robert Virding)
wrote:
>In article <19970315085...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com (FOR7) writes:
>>For close in air to air with equal pilots in capability I would easily say
>>the F-16 hands down. The best dogfighter ever made so far for production!
>
>In a similar discussion a few years back someone mentioned that in Red
>Flag (?) tests Harriers were getting 4-1 kill ratios on F-16s. This
>was inside BVR as Harriers did not have BVR capabilities then. (Do
>they now?)
>
>Of course this was netinfo and I have no way of knowing if it is to be
>believed.
>
>--
>Robert Virding Tel: +46 (0)8 719 95 28
>Computer Science Laboratory Email: r...@erix.ericsson.se
>Ericsson Telecom AB
>S-126 25 ÄLVSJÖ, SWEDEN
>WWW: http://www.ericsson.se/cslab/~rv
>"Folk säger att jag inte bryr mig om någonting, men det skiter jag i".
Don't the brits now have the same radar in the one of the harrier
varients as a F18?.
How much faster is the SHAR than the other varients, Does anyone out
there have some handy comparisons between AV8B's, SHAR's, GR7's.
Such as load, hardpoints, range and speed.
These figures compare AFAIK to several conventional jets.
Audun Haaland
Jim <jbil...@istar.ca> wrote in article <5gngeg$f...@news.istar.ca>...
> In article <mTWQLSAh...@green-leas.demon.co.uk>,
> Jona...@green-leas.demon.co.uk says...
> >
> >In article <19970315221...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, AFMSS Robi
> ><afms...@aol.com> writes
> >>The world's undisputed greatest air to air killing machine is the F-15.
> >>The Tom Kitty is underpowered and too big, the F-16's radar is too
small
> >>and it doesn't have the gas to fight much beyond the local airfield and
it
> >>can't carry much A/A ordinance. If it survives to the merge (unlikely)
it
> >>can turn up it's own ass (if it's not carrying anything) but has a
> >>tendency to put its pilots to sleep. It's a fun airplane but I wouldn't
> >>want to go to war in it. The next best is the F-18. Excellent radar,
good
> >>turner, and heavily armed. The Mig-29's a strong performer but it's
radar
> >>is also weak.
> >I'm with this one. I have no doubt that the F-15 will come out top in a
> >dogfight. It is the best in the world in the air superiority role.
> >
I disagree with the above.
I think the Flanker family is the best. Its radar is good, excelent
performance,
a great payload, and the ability to out- point anything else.It also has a
nice load of fuel
and top speeds. The latest Su-37 can out- turn even F-22s. So i dont think
the
F-15 is the best anymore.
Thomas
Matt Clonfero
"john...@tafensw.edu.au" <john...@tafensw.edu.au> wrote:
>Don't the brits now have the same radar in the one of the harrier
>varients as a F18?.
No. The Sea Harrier FRS.1 has Blue Fox radar; the FA.2 has Blue Vixen.
The Harrier with F/A-18 radar is the AV-8B+, operated by the USMC
among others.
>How much faster is the SHAR than the other varients, Does anyone out
>there have some handy comparisons between AV8B's, SHAR's, GR7's.
No idea.
>Such as load, hardpoints, range and speed.
Thr RAF Harriers (Harrier GR.7, akin to a vanilla AV-8B) have more
hardpoints and can carry a higher load than the Sea Harrier FA.2.
The RAF birds don't have radars, though - just the LRMTS in the nose.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
================================================================================
Matt Clonfero: Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To Err is Human
My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Wind Rider
Steve's response is the typical cocksure eagle driver's kick their
butts by shooting them in the face with my AMRAAM eagle driver DRIVEL!
And it misses the point, I'm sure.
At close ranges, it depends more on the squirming skills of the pilot,
the MEZ associated with the short burners on his rails, how effective
his close in countermeasures are and how he uses them, and WETHER OR
NOT HE SEES THEM COMING! Basically, anything with more than a 1 to 1
thrust to weight ratio capable of manuevering at up to 8 or so Gee
(more will likely as not blackout the pilot) is enough to get you into
the dance...wether or not you can keep the beat is up to the
individual...
Ptolomy
jlau...@aol.com (JLAuPage) wrote:
>>The world's undisputed greatest air to air killing machine is the F-15.
>>The Tom Kitty is underpowered and too big, the F-16's radar is too small
>>and it doesn't have the gas to fight much beyond the local airfield and
>it
>>can't carry much A/A ordinance. If it survives to the merge (unlikely) it
>>can turn up it's own ass (if it's not carrying anything) but has a
>>tendency to put its pilots to sleep. It's a fun airplane but I wouldn't
>>want to go to war in it. The next best is the F-18. Excellent radar, good
>>turner, and heavily armed. The Mig-29's a strong performer but it's radar
>>is also weak.
We all seem to be in agreement here, so lets look at the numbers.
Every year the armed services of the US put on joint tactical air
combat exersises - i.e. checkered flag, red flag, and others.
Out of the last twelve years, or so, that I am aware of these
exersises, the F-15 won all around for all but four of those years.
The F-16 won three and the F-18 won once. The poor tom kitty never
came close to placing overall. Excersises include air to air, air to
ground, long range interseptions and dog fighting.
But lets put this in perspective.
The F-15 was designed an air-superiority fighter, and the F-14 as a
long range interceptor. Both aircraft excell at their job, and could
not effectively replace one another for those specific duties.
The -16's and -18's are both remarkable and agile aircraft which
excell at just about anything they are tasked with.Their primary
benefits are that they are light, manoverable, and CHEAP! (eh,
relatively, that is) Lets not neglect the flight crew, they
certainly play the most important role, for without them, none of
these aircraft would be worth the scrap their made from!! ( at least
for the time being-- until some major developments are made in the
field of AI that is.)
Regards, JCD
kid...@aol.com
In article <33307e9c....@ilitnews.tafensw.edu.au>, john...@tafensw.edu.au (john...@tafensw.edu.au) writes:
>Don't the brits now have the same radar in the one of the harrier
>varients as a F18?.
The SHAR does have the RADAR capable of operating the AMRAAM.
I am told that the only aircraft that touches the SHAR now is the F-16. Then the SHAR simply departs from controlled flight and at least escapes, if not acheiving the kill. Hence 4-1 ratio.
Matthew Hamer
F89J Scorpion! On closing, opposing pilots faint in disbelief, and have
controlled flight into terrain ....
In article <5h1i55$2...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Wind Rider
Well, if controlled flight into the ground counts, then the prize goes
to Isreali piloted F-4s...story goes that Syrian MiG pilots elected to
pre-emptorily eject rather than close to the merge with them...
Marcus Chua
Hi Guys,
All right, ready for this? The F-16s has longer legs than the F-15!!
Check it out yourself. If you still do not believe, figure this out: the
F-16 and the F-15 uses almost the same engine. So the fuel consumption of
the F-15 is double that of the F-16. Look at the figures from Jane's All
The World's Aircraft, the F-15 carries less than double the fuel than that
of the F-16. Another evidence. You can go visit reputable websites on F-16s
and F-15s they normally tell you the range of these birds. Go ahead and
compare.
Next, you mean the F-15 isn't too big?? The F-15 is huge!! The F-16
doesn't have a radar which is too small. Its radar is better than the
F-18's. The F-16C's AN/APG-68 has a search range of 184 miles (296km) while
the F-18C's AN/APG-65 only has a search range of 92 miles (150km). The TWS
range is also better although I don't have the numbers. The F-16 can carry
quite alot of Air-to-Air stuff although not as much as the F-15, F-14 and
F-18s. But don't forget, the USAF has more than 3 thousands of them and
more on order. More than any of the other fighters. Does it need to survive
the merge?? The F-16 just get an on your face Slammer shot on the missile's
no-escape zone and thats the end of you. If it puts the pilots to sleep,
the other pilot would be in a coma!!! The F-16 is the only aircraft capable
of full sustaintion of 9Gs and it does it well. If you would not want to go
to war with it, how come the USAF sent so many F-16s to Desert Storm??
In the first place, did I seem to agree with you?? Ah ha!! You seem to be
contradicting yourself. The F-16 won the F-18. So watch what you type.
With regards,
Marcus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To See What the Author Wrote Before Look At The Referring Page
> ................We all seem to be in agreement here, so lets look at the
Wind Rider
Obvious wacker drivel...
I'll take a well executed aggressor plan with (insert aircraft type
here) against anyone advocating any kindof plan involving the term
"wall of" being ?directed? by the flying commodore 64 crowd....
Yama
Marcus Chua wrote:
> Next, you mean the F-15 isn't too big?? The F-15 is huge!! The F-16
> doesn't have a radar which is too small. Its radar is better than the
> F-18's. The F-16C's AN/APG-68 has a search range of 184 miles (296km) while
> the F-18C's AN/APG-65 only has a search range of 92 miles (150km). The TWS
> range is also better although I don't have the numbers. The F-16 can carry
> quite alot of Air-to-Air stuff although not as much as the F-15, F-14 and
> F-18s. But don't forget, the USAF has more than 3 thousands of them and
> more on order. More than any of the other fighters. Does it need to survive
> the merge?? The F-16 just get an on your face Slammer shot on the missile's
> no-escape zone and thats the end of you. If it puts the pilots to sleep,
> the other pilot would be in a coma!!! The F-16 is the only aircraft capable
> of full sustaintion of 9Gs and it does it well. If you would not want to go
> to war with it, how come the USAF sent so many F-16s to Desert Storm??
>
> In the first place, did I seem to agree with you?? Ah ha!! You seem to be
> contradicting yourself. The F-16 won the F-18. So watch what you type.
F-16 did not won F-18. YF-16 won YF-17.
Strange that so many times, when there has been competition between F-16
and F-18, later has usually won (Sweden, Finland, Swiss, South
Korea(though in last case order was later changed to F-16)). Not meaning
that F-16 is bad plane, however...
Rickard Johansson
Yama <tj...@raita.oulu.fi> writes:
>F-16 did not won F-18. YF-16 won YF-17.
>Strange that so many times, when there has been competition between F-16
>and F-18, later has usually won (Sweden, Finland, Swiss, South
>Korea(though in last case order was later changed to F-16)). Not meaning
>that F-16 is bad plane, however...
What !
Are the swedish airforce buying F-18's !
Shit, they doublecrossed us.
Anybody out there intested in buying 110 JAS-39 Gripens ?
regards,
Rikard
Yama
Rickard Johansson wrote:
>
> Yama <tj...@raita.oulu.fi> writes:
>
> >F-16 did not won F-18. YF-16 won YF-17.
>
> >Strange that so many times, when there has been competition between F-16
> >and F-18, later has usually won (Sweden, Finland, Swiss, South
> >Korea(though in last case order was later changed to F-16)). Not meaning
> >that F-16 is bad plane, however...
>
> What !
> Are the swedish airforce buying F-18's !
> Shit, they doublecrossed us.
Not quite. F-18 won the original fly-off at '80s, but government decided
to built indigenous plane to save several thousand jobs in a/c industry.
> Anybody out there intested in buying 110 JAS-39 Gripens ?
We'll see...
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <19970323224...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
I am just going to have to ask for a reference for this 4-1 kill ratio. If
this ratio were true, why both buying F-15's and their ilk; Harriers would
be so much better!
Look, to be honest you are showing a fundamental lack of knowledge here. I
assume that by departing controlled flight you are talking about VIFFing?
This is very different to departing controlled flight. IF you depart
controlled flight, THEN you are DEAD as you cannot control your aircraft.
WRT VIFFing (vectoring in forward flight), this tactic has never been used
in combat, and for good reason. You use it, and cause your opposition to
overshoot. Problem is, you have lost a great deal of energy (and air
combat these days is all energy based). Just as you are lining up for a
firing solution, you get this other plane, called a wingman, that blasts
you out of the sky. Novices always just assume a pure one on one combat
scenario. In practice, this doesn't happen.
I hope that this does not seem to be a flame, it was not intended that
way. This is a VERY good forum for learning, but you will crash and burn
if you post erroneous data.
Dennis
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
fub...@aol.com
"Marcus Chua" <wiza...@mbox2.singnet.com.sg> writes:
> Next, you mean the F-15 isn't too big?? The F-15 is huge!! The F-16
>doesn't have a radar which is too small. Its radar is better than the
>F-18's. The F-16C's AN/APG-68 has a search range of 184 miles (296km) while
>the F-18C's AN/APG-65 only has a search range of 92 miles (150km).
The ranges quoted above are the radar ranges from Harpoon 2. The F-16C
pilots I've talked to say that in the real world the Hornet's APG-65 has slightly
greater range than the Viper's APG-68 against equal-RCS targets ( without
specifiying just what those ranges are ).
Fubar2X
AFMSS Robi
Marcus Chua wrote:
> Next, you mean the F-15 isn't too big?? The F-15 is huge!! The
F-16
> doesn't have a radar which is too small. Its radar is better than the
> F-18's. The F-16C's AN/APG-68 has a search range of 184 miles (296km)
while
> the F-18C's AN/APG-65 only has a search range of 92 miles (150km). The
TWS
> range is also better although I don't have the numbers. The F-16 can
carry
> quite alot of Air-to-Air stuff although not as much as the F-15, F-14
and
> F-18s. But don't forget, the USAF has more than 3 thousands of them and
> more on order. More than any of the other fighters. Does it need to
survive
> the merge?? The F-16 just get an on your face Slammer shot on the
missile's
> no-escape zone and thats the end of you. If it puts the pilots to sleep,
> the other pilot would be in a coma!!! The F-16 is the only aircraft
capable
> of full sustaintion of 9Gs and it does it well. If you would not want to
go
> to war with it, how come the USAF sent so many F-16s to Desert Storm??
Ahhh. A spirited debate!!!
Why did they send so many F-16s? Cause they're cheap and you need a lot of
them to do any damage.
F-16's search range? About 2/3's of the eagle.
F-18's radar? Wider coverage than both the eagle and the Toy Jet.
Turn at 9G's? If your turning that much, you're already dead.
If you wait to fire the slammer at No-Escape, then you will have been
boinked a long time ago. If you leave after firing your PK just dropped.
Come-on, let's here more from you piddle pack ejecting, ice fod sucking,
butt pirates from the pork falcon lightweight disposable fighter!!!!!
AFMSS Robi
Dear Doubting Thomas wrote:
"I think the Flanker family is the best. Its radar is good, excelent
performance, a great payload, and the ability to out- point anything
else.It also has a nice load of fuel
and top speeds. The latest Su-37 can out- turn even F-22s. So i dont think
the
F-15 is the best anymore."
That's why the Israeli's so heavily invest in Flankers I guess, and they
really beat us up in the Great Gulf Turkey Shoot.
You can drive a truck through it's radar's weaknesses.
MANNY ALMAZAN
Please don't use the DS examples as a way to show that the Eagle is the fighter
supreme.
Or that most of the aerial warfare will be BVR in the future.
They won't.
The ROE's will see to that.
You can't shoot if you don't have a visual ID.
and the hit ratio of the AIM-7 Sparrow that the Eagle carry is not that great.
only 20%-25% of the Sparrows lauched during Desert strom hit their target.
BTW. for a "disposble jet" the F-16's have been giving holding their own in air over
Nellis.
PS if the f-16 can out turn the f-15 and their accelleration is not that far apart
how will an F-15 evade an F-16 if the 16 gets on his 6?
You can't out turn it.
If you try to go vertical on it the -16 can stay with you long enough to launch an
sidewinder.
If you try to seperate you can't get out of the launch range fast enough to avoid a
missile launch.
MANNY ALMAZAN
mha...@mail.island.net (Matthew Hamer) wrote:
>F89J Scorpion! On closing, opposing pilots faint in disbelief, and have
>controlled flight into terrain ....
>
>In article <5h1i55$2...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
> euc...@juno.com (Ptolomy) wrote:
>>jlau...@aol.com (JLAuPage) wrote:
>>>
>>We all seem to be in agreement here, so lets look at the numbers.
>>Every year the armed services of the US put on joint tactical air
>>combat exersises - i.e. checkered flag, red flag, and others.
>>Out of the last twelve years, or so, that I am aware of these
>>exersises, the F-15 won all around for all but four of those years.
>>The F-16 won three and the F-18 won once. The poor tom kitty never
>>came close to placing overall. Excersises include air to air, air to
>>ground, long range interseptions and dog fighting.
>>But lets put this in perspective.
>>The F-15 was designed an air-superiority fighter, and the F-14 as a
>>long range interceptor. Both aircraft excell at their job, and could
>>not effectively replace one another for those specific duties.
>>The -16's and -18's are both remarkable and agile aircraft which
>>excell at just about anything they are tasked with.Their primary
>>benefits are that they are light, manoverable, and CHEAP! (eh,
>>relatively, that is) Lets not neglect the flight crew, they
>>certainly play the most important role, for without them, none of
>>these aircraft would be worth the scrap their made from!! ( at least
>>for the time being-- until some major developments are made in the
>>field of AI that is.)
>>Regards, JCD
>>
If the you are referring to the William Tell competitions don't expect the F-16 to
win to many of them. (some of the William Tell exerices require a Sparrow shoot and
-16's don't as a rule carry them and the AIM-120 is still in limited distribution)
As for Red Flag, it's kind of hard to go air-to-air if your orders are to
concentrate on droping the bombs on target and to leave the ACM to the ego drivers.
BTW the F-16 was originally designed as a daylight medium range dogfighter.
with the task of killing anything that flies, in this role it has few equals.
Question: how do you train f-16 pilots in ACM if the Airforce has been disbanding
the Agrressor squadrons since 1991?
I can't find any refernce to them in the USAF's TOE anymore.
HeadShok
>I think the Flanker family is the best. Its radar is good, excelent
>performance,
>a great payload, and the ability to out- point anything else.It also has a
>nice load of fuel
>and top speeds. The latest Su-37 can out- turn even F-22s. So i dont think
>the
>F-15 is the best anymore.
>Thomas
You said it! It is time the Americans got rid of their superiority
complex! (That is thier belief that they are a super-race above all
others). In the modern era it is obvious that other nations are
becoming a force in the aircraft industry. Such examples of this are
highly successful warplanes such as the Panavia Tornado, Eurofighter
2000, MiG-29 Fulcrum, and as mentioned above the Su-27 Flanker.
In reading several postings in this newsgroup this complex seems to
come to the fore! Give the other nations a fair hearing! The best
fighters at the present come from Russia, Europe and America, and it
is not correct for an objective subject such as the best fighter
should not be seen through a red, white and blue distorted viewpoint.
For the best fighter the Su-27, MiG-29 and F-15 all can be placed in
this category.
Ed Rasimus
euc...@juno.com (Ptolomy) wrote:
>We all seem to be in agreement here, so lets look at the numbers.
>Every year the armed services of the US put on joint tactical air
>combat exersises - i.e. checkered flag, red flag, and others.
The "Flag" exercises do different things. One thing they aren't is a
competition between aircraft types to demonstrate any kind of
superiority. They provide an opportunity for multiple disparate units
to integrate and coordinate their efforts in a large scale combat
scenario.
BTW, while "Red Flag" is a field exercise, "Checkered Flag" is a
deployment program to war plan basing. Other flags are dedicated to
command post exercises or electronic warfare training.
>Out of the last twelve years, or so, that I am aware of these
>exersises, the F-15 won all around for all but four of those years.
>The F-16 won three and the F-18 won once. The poor tom kitty never
>came close to placing overall. Excersises include air to air, air to
>ground, long range interseptions and dog fighting.
No one is designated a "winner" at Red Flag. Since it is a USAF
program and joint/combined operations are limited, superiority of
F-18s or F-14s would be difficult to demonstrate under any
circumstances.
Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Ed Rasimus
MANNY ALMAZAN <MANU...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>They won't.
>The ROE's will see to that.
Future ROE will not be as dependent upon VID. Non-cooperative
identification techniques as well as improving battle field oversight
will allow for considerable latitude in the development of ROE.
>You can't shoot if you don't have a visual ID.
>and the hit ratio of the AIM-7 Sparrow that the Eagle carry is not that great.
>only 20%-25% of the Sparrows lauched during Desert strom hit their target.
20-25% success rates for weapon launches under combat conditions is
exceptional.
>
>PS if the f-16 can out turn the f-15 and their accelleration is not that far apart
>how will an F-15 evade an F-16 if the 16 gets on his 6?
Air-to-air is NEVER an issue of one-v-one with a requirement for tail
aspect kill. The predominant factor for victory is early detection.
With proper tactics, good mutual support and high reliability an air
superiority force improves their chances. As long as a fighter has
reasonable/competitive turn capability, g-available, and
thrust/weight, the battle can go either way.
And to cut to the heart of your question, the F-15 wingman threatens
the attacking Viper. Of course, the question of getting on someone's
six is moot--has been for years, since the development of the AIM-9L.
>
>You can't out turn it.
>If you try to go vertical on it the -16 can stay with you long enough to launch an
>sidewinder.
>If you try to seperate you can't get out of the launch range fast enough to avoid a
>missile launch.
"Going vertical" doesn't mean climbing into the stratosphere, it means
taking the turning engagement out of the horizontal and gaining the
benefit of radial "G".....a whole nuther discussion.
Kristan Roberge
Yama <tj...@raita.oulu.fi> wrote:
>
> Marcus Chua wrote:
> > In the first place, did I seem to agree with you?? Ah ha!! You seem to be
> > contradicting yourself. The F-16 won the F-18. So watch what you type.
>
>
> F-16 did not won F-18. YF-16 won YF-17.
>
> Strange that so many times, when there has been competition between F-16
> and F-18, later has usually won (Sweden, Finland, Swiss, South
> Korea(though in last case order was later changed to F-16)). Not meaning
> that F-16 is bad plane, however...
Your forgot Canada, CF-18s (which are basically the same as F/A-18A/Bs)
last year at William-Tell took the overall trophy against F-16s, and F-15s.
Kristan Roberge
"Marcus Chua" <wiza...@mbox2.singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
> All right, ready for this? The F-16s has longer legs than the F-15!!
> Check it out yourself. If you still do not believe, figure this out: the
> F-16 and the F-15 uses almost the same engine. So the fuel consumption of
> the F-15 is double that of the F-16. Look at the figures from Jane's All
> The World's Aircraft, the F-15 carries less than double the fuel than that
> of the F-16. Another evidence. You can go visit reputable websites on F-16s
> and F-15s they normally tell you the range of these birds. Go ahead and
> compare.
Just in case no one else has said this already...
YOUR A MORON!
Yes the F-15 & -16s use basically the same engine (depending on the
model of course). But the F-16s have about 6,000 Ibs of internal fuel
as memory serves and the F-15s around 11,000 Ibs of internal fuel. The
F-15 also has the capacity for 3 600 US gallon drop tanks AND the
two Conformal-Fuel-Tanks (CFTs) which add another 1000 gallons or so
as I recall. I think the ALL up fuel weight of an F-15 is something
like 23,000 Ibs versus about 10,000 Ibs of an F16.
> Next, you mean the F-15 isn't too big?? The F-15 is huge!! The F-16
> doesn't have a radar which is too small. Its radar is better than the
> F-18's. The F-16C's AN/APG-68 has a search range of 184 miles (296km) while
Against a VERY large aircraft flying at high altitude. Its not going
to automatically detect an approaching cruise missile (for example) flying
at 100 feet 184 miles away.
> the merge?? The F-16 just get an on your face Slammer shot on the missile's
Uh huh, meanwhile F/A-18s, F-15s, and F-14s all have the capacity for
using the AMRAAM also, plus the -15E and -14D have better radars.
> no-escape zone and thats the end of you. If it puts the pilots to sleep,
> the other pilot would be in a coma!!! The F-16 is the only aircraft capable
> of full sustaintion of 9Gs and it does it well.
F-15s can hold 9G just fine, its the pilot's that are the problems.
Course, you magical figures have me wondering why all the refference sources
I have put the F-15s and F-5s as the most agile fighters for air-to-air
combat in the US inventory (hard to argue with the F-5s 720 degree
per second roll rate - can you say "HURL!")
>If you would not want to go
> to war with it, how come the USAF sent so many F-16s to Desert Storm??
Because they weren't doing any good sitting at home?!?
> In the first place, did I seem to agree with you?? Ah ha!! You seem to be
> contradicting yourself. The F-16 won the F-18. So watch what you type.
Are you whining about the original Lightweigh Fighter Competition back
in 1974 where the YF-16 beat the YF-17?!?
Kristan Roberge
MANNY ALMAZAN <MANU...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> PS if the f-16 can out turn the f-15 and their accelleration is not that far apart
> how will an F-15 evade an F-16 if the 16 gets on his 6?
>
> You can't out turn it.
> If you try to go vertical on it the -16 can stay with you long enough to launch an
> sidewinder.
> If you try to seperate you can't get out of the launch range fast enough to avoid a
> missile launch.
Pop the speed brake and flaps and pull verticle hoping for an overshoot?
Take lessons from the canadians?!?
Johan Rundberg
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
> Yama <tj...@raita.oulu.fi> wrote:
> >
> > Marcus Chua wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >
> > Strange that so many times, when there has been competition between F-16
> > and F-18, later has usually won (Sweden, Finland, Swiss, South
> > Korea(though in last ...(snip)
Partly wrong. Swedens last US-fighter was the P-51 D.
Regards
Johan R.
Kristan Roberge
MANNY ALMAZAN <MANU...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> BTW the F-16 was originally designed as a daylight medium range dogfighter.
> with the task of killing anything that flies, in this role it has few equals.
That was the goal for the ORIGINAL F-16 A/B... but the current C/D
models have more weight to drag around and are designed for a
secondary air-to-ground role, as such the air-to-air capabilities
have suffered somewhat.
29crosby
Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> MANNY ALMAZAN <MANU...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >They won't.
> >The ROE's will see to that.
>
> Future ROE will not be as dependent upon VID. Non-cooperative
> identification techniques as well as improving battle field oversight
> will allow for considerable latitude in the development of ROE.
>
> >You can't shoot if you don't have a visual ID.
> >and the hit ratio of the AIM-7 Sparrow that the Eagle carry is not that great.
> >only 20%-25% of the Sparrows lauched during Desert strom hit their target.
>
> 20-25% success rates for weapon launches under combat conditions is
> exceptional.
> >
> >how will an F-15 evade an F-16 if the 16 gets on his 6?
>
> aspect kill. The predominant factor for victory is early detection.
> With proper tactics, good mutual support and high reliability an air
> superiority force improves their chances. As long as a fighter has
> reasonable/competitive turn capability, g-available, and
> thrust/weight, the battle can go either way.
>
> And to cut to the heart of your question, the F-15 wingman threatens
> the attacking Viper. Of course, the question of getting on someone's
> six is moot--has been for years, since the development of the AIM-9L.
> >
> >If you try to go vertical on it the -16 can stay with you long enough to launch an
> >sidewinder.
> >If you try to seperate you can't get out of the launch range fast enough to avoid a
> >missile launch.
>
> taking the turning engagement out of the horizontal and gaining the
> benefit of radial "G".....a whole nuther discussion.
>
> Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
> Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
> *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
> *** (http://www.zdnet.com)
better, one F-15 (`$40 million flyawy) or two F-16s (~$20 million each
flyaway)? Or, make it more realistic. My air force has 200 F-16s, yours
has 100 F-15s and our pilots and such are equal. Who do you think wins
the air war?
Ryan Tintner
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote in article
<5helgj$b...@news.istar.ca>...
OK... The F-16 is capable of much higher performance in A-A combat, as
well as supersonic flight at high altitudes. In a war situation, i.e. Gulf
War, the F-16s will be sent in firwst because they are simply a better
aircraft for the situation. Fuel consumption being lower, the cost which
the F-16 operates at per hour is much less than that of an F-15. The F-15
was designed before the F-16, making it a less aerodynamic and sleek
aircraft. Over all, the F-16 can out perform the F-15 in just about every
situation.
>
>
Ed Rasimus
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>MANNY ALMAZAN <MANU...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> BTW the F-16 was originally designed as a daylight medium range dogfighter.
>> with the task of killing anything that flies, in this role it has few equals.
>
>That was the goal for the ORIGINAL F-16 A/B... but the current C/D
>models have more weight to drag around and are designed for a
>secondary air-to-ground role, as such the air-to-air capabilities
>have suffered somewhat.
Nope, you're both wrong. And even wrong on different issues.
The original design competition between the YF-16 and YF-17 was to
provide an all-purpose lightweight "fighter" (AF terminology not USN)
that could replace the aging F-4 fleet. The air superiority mission
was be adequately handled by the F-15.
The employment concept was for a mixed force (often referred to as
Hi-Lo mix) which could do everything required of the tactical air
force. That meant the first edition Vipers would be carrying iron
while having an exceptional capability to defend themselves air/air.
They didn't have a radar missile and they didn't have an air intercept
optimized radar.
As for "more weight to drag around", the C/D versions benefit from
improved engines and the "large mouth" mod. The air/air capabilities
have been greatly enhanced rather than "suffered somewhat" by the
addition of medium range radar missiles--first the Sparrow and now the
AIM-120.
I'm sometimes amazed at the drivel that gets spread in this newsgroup.
One fool says something from Popular Mechanics and the other one
corrects him with stats from a video game.
Voitto
http://www.kd.qd.se/~griffon/aviation/text/39gripen.htm
claims: JAS 39 Gripen ?
--
Voitto Walter Kotiaho +++++++ vkot...@cc.hut.fi -------
29crosby
Kristan Roberge wrote:
> The F-15 is 25% faster than the F-16, has longer legs,
> (major cuts)
In "Pentagon Paradox" James P. Stevenson discusses, at times in
excutiating detail, F-15 vs. F-16 range and speed. According to "PP" the
F-16 is longer ranged on internal fuel than the F-15. Also, while the
F-15 can go Mach 2.6, its usable combat speed is Mach 1.8. To get beyond
that speed you have to remove all of your missiles (4 AIM-7 Sarrow and 4
AIM-9 Sidewinders) and all of your 20mm ammo (~1000 rnds). You go full
burner and get to Mach 2.3, then you hit the Vmax(?) button. Now you are
about fifty miles from your field and going Mach 2.6. Hopefully there is
a tanker nearby because you are about to run out of gas. Also, your
ground crew is pretty annoyed at you because they've got a lot of work
ahead of them, either a major check out or removal of the engines. I
believe (though I'm not sure) and F-16 can reach Mach 2.0 with four
AIM-9 Sidewinder and full ammo load (500 rnds?).
Wind Rider
Ed is correct. The Flag exercises do not assign "winners" or "losers"
per se to other than the individuals involved in specific engagements,
or as an assesment of the overall plan (although it isn't discussed in
those terms).
It does, however, give the not-so-casual observer the benefit of more
than just comparing facts and figures in public literature books with
(sometimes) questionable values assigned. Some observations thus far:
As I stated before, given the following parameters (which apply to
more places than that wonderful playground north of Las Vegas) 1) a
shot decision matrix which MAY include VID, but is certainly
restrictive to prevent fratricide (killing ones own) 2) Thrust to
weight ratio greater than 1:1 3) 8.5+ Gee turn capability (sustained
or snap) it rapidly becomes a moot point about the actual aircraft,
and enters more the realm of pilot experience, training, and tactics,
conditioning and abilities.
Certainly, a big radar and a long burn missle will allow for a stiff
arm move. Long legs (read: combat radius) are a plus, as it allows
you to stick around longer to shoot even more bad guys, but not if the
cost means hanging HUGE tanks under your itty bitty wings that drag
down your G capability and limit your top end (for the average Janes
reference hound, note that the "performance figures" listed for the
General Dynamics product are in a "clean" configuration)
Backing up the assertion that it doesn't matter what hardware ya brung
to the party...That is a position carefully developed after sitting
through waaaaaaaaay too many
air-to-air-stop-I-shop-my-watch-here-fpole such n such debriefs - many
of which included kills of f-18's by f-15s, kills of f-15s by f-16s,
kills of f-16s by f-18s, kills of f-4s by EVERYBODY (except BUFFs or
BONEs) etc etc etc. Well you get the idea.
Another important point brought up, but not really addressed, is
knowing, before you get even close to the merge, is WHO you are going
to shoot, and WHERE they are while you plan to shoot them...given
that, points 1) 2) and 3) above don't mean didley, because with that
info and a nice ridge line, even a warthog can outshoot even the
prettiest, shiniest, fastest thing around (seen it happen).
Basically, which is the best fighter is only a small small part of the
question...the actual question is, and should always be...how do we
kill them before they kill us...and the answer to that question isn't
a set of numbers in Jane's folks....
Kristan Roberge
"Ryan Tintner" <rjti...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> OK... The F-16 is capable of much higher performance in A-A combat, as
> well as supersonic flight at high altitudes.
The F-15 is 25% faster than the F-16, has longer legs, and a heavier
payload. The F-15 can accelerate thru the supersonic in a verticle
climb, which as far as I know, the F-16 cannot.
> War, the F-16s will be sent in firwst because they are simply a better
> aircraft for the situation. Fuel consumption being lower, the cost which
> the F-16 operates at per hour is much less than that of an F-15.
Cost per hour is based both on fuel consuption, and on maintenance. One
engine obviously uses less fuel than two. That does NOT make it a better
fighter. If it was, why do countries like Saudi Arabia want to buy
F-15Es over F16C/Ds? Perhaps because the StrikeEagle is a better
tactical fighter than the F-16? For countries where the price per unit
is more of a concern, then yeah, the F-16 is probably a better choice,
but oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia can afford the best.
> was designed before the F-16, making it a less aerodynamic and sleek
> aircraft. Over all, the F-16 can out perform the F-15 in just about every
> situation.
That's bullshit. The F-15 has alot more aerodynamic though behind
it, and is alot better than altitude than the F-16. The F-16 was supposed
to be a cheap lightweight day fighter. The F-15 was purpose built as
an all-weather, air-superiority fighter.
Cynthia Keeney
From: [1]29crosby
>Considering the question of cost along with other factors which is
>better, one F-15 (`$40 million flyawy) or two F-16s (~$20 million each
>flyaway)? Or, make it more realistic. My air force has 200 F-16s, yours
>has 100 F-15s and our pilots and such are equal. Who do you think wins
>the air war?
Depends.
Do they also have to support the grunts or are you talking strickly the
air-to-air *part* of the war?
I suspect the general answer is related to who controls the initiative;
who can take the fight where the realitive strengths most suit them.
If the Eagle drivers have the room to work with they could gain good
advantage with thier longer range and bigger weapons load. The F-16 crowd
could negate much of that advantage if terrain and other force
considerations (bombers, attack planes, ground battle ect) can be used to
force the fight in tight and relatively chaotic.
So I'ld guess the F-16 mafia could pull it off if their side jumped the
boarder in the mountainous terrain of two small neighboring nations.
Across hundreds of miles of ocean to support/repel an amphib invasion? Fat
chance.
One thing I'm confident of is who will have the most shot down.
Ed Rasimus
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>YOUR A MORON!
Your ability to condense an argument remains remarkeable.
>Course, you magical figures have me wondering why all the refference sources
>I have put the F-15s and F-5s as the most agile fighters for air-to-air
>combat in the US inventory (hard to argue with the F-5s 720 degree
>per second roll rate - can you say "HURL!")
FYI, there are NO F-5s in the US inventory. There have NEVER been F-5s
with a designated operational role in the US inventory. There have
NEVER been F-5s with an air-to-air tasking in the US inventory.
F-5s assigned to Williams AFB conducted training of foreign military
sales customers. F-5s assigned to a test and evaluation unit,
designated Skoshi Tiger, conducted limited combat operations
(air/ground) in South Vietnam in 1966-67. F-5s designated as training
assets served as Aggressor aircraft in PACAF, USAFE and TAC.
And, just for background, and to keep your lunch down, NO F-5 ever had
a 720 degree per second roll rate. That questionable parameter was
attached to the T-38. The F-5 with its tip tanks and solid slab wing
had too great a moment of inertia to develop the roll rates of the
trainer.
29crosby
fub...@aol.com wrote:
>
> "Marcus Chua" <wiza...@mbox2.singnet.com.sg> writes:
>
> > Next, you mean the F-15 isn't too big?? The F-15 is huge!! The F-16
> >doesn't have a radar which is too small. Its radar is better than the
> >F-18's. The F-16C's AN/APG-68 has a search range of 184 miles (296km) while
>
> The ranges quoted above are the radar ranges from Harpoon 2. The F-16C
> pilots I've talked to say that in the real world the Hornet's APG-65 has slightly
> greater range than the Viper's APG-68 against equal-RCS targets ( without
> specifiying just what those ranges are ).
>
> Fubar2X
the Hornet's radar is dual mode, air-to-air and air-to-surface, whereas
the F-16's is, I assume, optimized for ATA work. It was always assumed
the Hornet would be as likely to shoot at ships as planes.
29crosby
survive? Back to our hypothetical air war, I lose 150 F-16s, you loss
100 F-15s, who won? Everything I've been able to read on the subject
indicates fighters are generally able to dodge radar guided missile at
BVR. I have nothing against BVR missiles. They are great for killing
bombers and cruise missiles at stand-off range. If you want to kill
fighters, you are probably better off not lugging around a big radar and
big missiles. Also, since you can generally afford two, or even three,
pure dogfighters for the cost of one superfighter, you can get a numbers
advantage. There is one arean where I believe the BVR missileer is very
important and that's on an aircraft carrier. Although, in the debate of
F-14D vs. F/A-18E/F (FA5H-5/6 would have been easier to write, oh well)
I think people over state the Tomcat's BVR or understate the Super
Bug's. Yes Tomcat gives you longer engagement ranges, but an E/F,
especially in deck launch interceptor role gives you twice as many
shots. Sorry about wandering of point.
Gary Madore
<SNIP>
>And, just for background, and to keep your lunch down, NO F-5 ever had
>a 720 degree per second roll rate. That questionable parameter was
>attached to the T-38. The F-5 with its tip tanks and solid slab wing
>had too great a moment of inertia to develop the roll rates of the
>trainer.
Although some of our CF-5 drivers claimed a 720 degree/sec roll rate it was,
I think, about half of that. This is one of those areas where it just doesn't
matter unless a new BFM involving rapidly spinning about one's longitudinal
axis has been developed... heh heh
Cheers!
Gary Madore
--
-----------------------------------------------
gma...@glinx.com
gma...@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/gmadore/gmadore.htm
-----------------------------------------------
Madness: A divine release of the soul from the yoke of custom and convention
-Socrates-
Paul J. Adam
In article <5helgj$b...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
<Krob...@magi.com> writes
>Course, you magical figures have me wondering why all the refference sources
>I have put the F-15s and F-5s as the most agile fighters for air-to-air
>combat in the US inventory (hard to argue with the F-5s 720 degree
>per second roll rate - can you say "HURL!")
"Agile" includes more than roll rate: the Tornado F.3 has a very high
roll rate, yet is routinely decried as "unmanoeverable". It includes
thrust-to-weight ratio (a weakness of the F-5), instantaneous and
sustained turn rates, and lots of other factors that real pilots know
far better than I.
The bottom line remains that the statistics of the aircraft matter less
than the man in the cockpit, the GCI or AWACS radar guiding him, the
quality of the missiles under his wings and the radar in his aircraft's
nose, and a boring number of other factors. A good pilot will find his
aircraft's strengths and pit them against his adversary's weaknesses.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Paul W Harvey
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:23:52 GMT, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>And, just for background, and to keep your lunch down, NO F-5 ever had
>a 720 degree per second roll rate. That questionable parameter was
>attached to the T-38. The F-5 with its tip tanks and solid slab wing
>had too great a moment of inertia to develop the roll rates of the
>trainer.
Ed,
I'm not questioning what you're saying about the roll rate, I've no
idea of the role rates of the planes mentioned, but what is a "tip
tank?"
All the F-5 pictures I've ever seen had Sidewinder rails on the wing
tips. Did they stick a fuel tank out there too or are you talking
about something else?
TIA,
Paul
Paul W Harvey
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 09:13:10 -0800, 29crosby <29cr...@telis.org>
wrote:
-snip-
>> One thing I'm confident of is who will have the most shot down.
>Perhaps it is at least as important to consider who will have the most
>survive? Back to our hypothetical air war, I lose 150 F-16s, you loss
>100 F-15s, who won?
You're both missing the point. Air war is a subset of war in general.
Who looses the most aircraft doesn't matter. Who accomplished their
objective. If by loosing 100 F-15s country A allowed their grunts to
take over country Bs airfields, country B is hosed reguardless.
>Everything I've been able to read on the subject
>indicates fighters are generally able to dodge radar guided missile at
>BVR.
Isn't the AMRAAM the unknown comodity here. I thought, to date, the
AMRAAM had a 100% kills, of course I may not have heard of all the
shots.
--Paul
Ed Rasimus
ph...@sprynet.com (Paul W Harvey) wrote:
>I'm not questioning what you're saying about the roll rate, I've no
>idea of the role rates of the planes mentioned, but what is a "tip
>tank?"
>
>All the F-5 pictures I've ever seen had Sidewinder rails on the wing
>tips. Did they stick a fuel tank out there too or are you talking
>about something else?
The F-5 had provisions for a tip store. The F-5E (and FMS versions)
was often configured for air-air training with an AIM-9 or ACMI
transmitter in place.
In the early versions A/B, C/D the regular configuration was with a
tip fuel tank--50 gallons each and with a distinctive area rule
wasp-waist.
Occasionally you see the airplane with nuttin' out there but the
rails.
RRLAWYR
I left rec.guns newsgroup because I got tired of the "what is the
best handgun?" discussions. I see this group has the same unanswerable
questions too.
29crosby
cockpit. With a cheaper light weight type, you can get more people in
the pit and increase you chances of having an ace in one of them.
Someone stated early in this thread that after you meet certain minimum
standars for thrust, agility, and speed, what really matters is the
driver. Wasn't it the Red Baron who said, "It isn't the crate, but the
man in it."
29crosby
combat, not testing) has been at Sidewinder range. If anybody out there
has info, espeically numbers of warshots, ranges fired at, and pk
numbers(again not test, but actual combat), I for one would love to hear
about them.
Wind Rider
29crosby <29cr...@telis.org> wrote:
----snip---
>> >Everything I've been able to read on the subject
>> >indicates fighters are generally able to dodge radar guided missile at
>> >BVR.
>>
>> Isn't the AMRAAM the unknown comodity here. I thought, to date, the
>> AMRAAM had a 100% kills, of course I may not have heard of all the
>> shots.
>>
>> --Paul
>For what it's worth, every AIM-120 ARAAM kill I've heard of ('real'
>combat, not testing) has been at Sidewinder range. If anybody out there
>has info, espeically numbers of warshots, ranges fired at, and pk
>numbers(again not test, but actual combat), I for one would love to hear
>about them.
So far, as far as I'm aware, all the "warshots" were taken in SWA,
where the ROE restrictions stipulated NO BVR....
Urban Fredriksson
In article <kw3g1xf...@marimba.hut.fi>,
Voitto <vkot...@marimba.hut.fi> wrote:
>http://www.kd.qd.se/~griffon/aviation/text/39gripen.htm
>claims: JAS 39 Gripen ?
To quote the document:
"Gripen is the world's best light weight multi role combat
aircraft in production."
Not exactly the same thing.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@kuai.se http://www.kuai.se/%7Egriffon/
A ferret diary, information, photos: http://www.kd.qd.se/%7Egriffon/ferrets/
A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.
29crosby
Serb Super Galeb(sp?), flying out of occupied Croatia, were bombing a
Bosnian small arms factor or ammo dump. One of the F-16s got three
kills, the other one kill. The guy that got three, according to news
accounts, got the first one with an AMRAAM, the rest were all Sidewinder
kills. Is my memory playing tricks or does that sound right to anyone
else?
Mark Muir
Wind Rider <win...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5hn36a$j...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>...
29crosby <29cr...@telis.org> wrote:
----snip---
>> >Everything I've been able to read on the subject
>> >indicates fighters are generally able to dodge radar guided missile at
>> >BVR.
>>
>> Isn't the AMRAAM the unknown comodity here. I thought, to date, the
>> AMRAAM had a 100% kills, of course I may not have heard of all the
>> shots.
>>
>> --Paul
>For what it's worth, every AIM-120 ARAAM kill I've heard of ('real'
>combat, not testing) has been at Sidewinder range. If anybody out there
>has info, espeically numbers of warshots, ranges fired at, and pk
>numbers(again not test, but actual combat), I for one would love to hear
>about them.
So far, as far as I'm aware, all the "warshots" were taken in SWA,
where the ROE restrictions stipulated NO BVR....
>What exactly is BVR range. Is there an an exact numerical measurement of
how far a pilot can visually detect a hostile.
29crosby
bunch of variables.
How good is the pilots eye sight? Chuck Yeager has (or at in rate in
his youth had) 20/10 vision. If I've got the number positions correct,
he could see something at 20 ft like it was at 10 ft. Or, in other
words, planes most people could see at 10 miles were visable to him at
20.
Another factor is the quality of the canopy 'glass.' I've read the
MiG-15 had poor quality think glass that made it hard to see out of.
The clarity of the air is an obvious factor. CAVU vs. pea soup fog or
somewhere in between.
Position of the sun will also have an effect on your visual spotting
range.
Finally there is the aircraft you are trying to see. A B-52 at
altitude, in bare metal finish, and with smoking engines is much easier
to see than say an F-16 in a low visibility grey paint scheme.
I thought there was a table in "Pentagon Paradox" by James Stevenson
that showed the maximum range at which you could spot various current
military aircraft but a quick look at the book failed to turn it up.
Maybe I can find it later and post it.
Paul W Harvey
On 1 Apr 1997 15:27:57 GMT, "Mark Muir" <Ma...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
>So far, as far as I'm aware, all the "warshots" were taken in SWA,
>where the ROE restrictions stipulated NO BVR....
I think there was one or two in Bosnia like Super said. I knew about
the ones in SWA, but the ref didn't mention ROE. It does stand to
reason VID would be required though.
I think (real sketchy please feel free to correct me) one of the SWA
shots was taken at a receding MiG which, IIRC, was BVR when the shot
was actually fired. Not at all sure though, I'll poke around some
more for the ref I was reading, just posting this in hopes of jogging
someones memory either way.
Reguards,
Paul
David Hyde
Geez, I always get to the good stuff late.
Kristan Roberge writes (in various posts):
>F-15s can hold 9G just fine, its the pilot's that are the problems.
Are you sure about that? Looked at a doghouse plot recently? What's the
Dash-1 g limit? And if a guy can't hack 9g's do they take him out of
Vipers and put him in Eagles?
>(hard to argue with the F-5s 720 degree
>per second roll rate - can you say "HURL!")
Not hard at all - it's wrong, or at best misleading. BTDT. I believe Ed
has already addressed this.
>> If you try to seperate you can't get out of the launch range fast
enough
>>to avoid a missile launch.
>Pop the speed brake and flaps and pull verticle hoping for an overshoot?
Thanks, Mav. We've been through this one before. Dumping _all_ of your
energy in a futile attempt to force an overshoot is stupid, and most
likely fatal.
And finally:
>YOUR A MORON!
Insightful. Thanks for sharing.
Dave 'bat-turn' Hyde
dh...@windvane.umd.edu
MANNY ALMAZAN
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>MANNY ALMAZAN <MANU...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> how will an F-15 evade an F-16 if the 16 gets on his 6?
>>
>> You can't out turn it.
>> If you try to go vertical on it the -16 can stay with you long enough to launch an
>> sidewinder.
>> If you try to seperate you can't get out of the launch range fast enough to avoid a
>> missile launch.
>
>Pop the speed brake and flaps and pull verticle hoping for an overshoot?
>
>
something I saw an F15 do at Nellis about 5 or 6 yrs ago.
the trailing f5 pulled his nose up an killed him with a simmulated Atoll.
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
>Perhaps it is at least as important to consider who will have the most
>survive? Back to our hypothetical air war, I lose 150 F-16s, you loss
>100 F-15s, who won?
One problem with your assumption here is that you are saying
that as the F-16, in basic form, costs half of that of the F-15,
you can get twice as many. However, you will have OVER twice the
attrition (single engine vs twin), you will have more costs
involved in maintenance (need many more personnel, spare parts,
and you need twice as many pilots). Suddenly, you chep fighter
ain't so cheap any more.
>Everything I've been able to read on the subject
>indicates fighters are generally able to dodge radar guided missile at
>BVR.
Many assumptions made here, inluding using numbers for the old AIM-7
(probably the E model used in Vietnam) and saying that these apply to the
AMRAAM. Leaving this aside, if you get a BVR missile shot at you, you
WILL have to manouevre to avoid it. What do you think this does to your
energy state? Put in a second BVR missile at you, you lose even more
energy (assuming that you have not already lost so much energy that you
are a sitting duck), and by the time I enter the arena, you are totally
defensive. Not a place I would like to be!!
WRT long range radar, if I have a long range radar, at least I can see my
threats. You with no radar cannot see yours. Throw in some inclement
weather to stuff your IR missiles, you can't see me visually (I am in the
clouds) and you end up in a lot of trouble.
The F-15 has taken on many comers in many different wars. One has yet to
be lost air-air. That fact alone speaks for itself (100-0 last caount!!)
Dennis
>I have nothing against BVR missiles. They are great for killing
>bombers and cruise missiles at stand-off range. If you want to kill
>fighters, you are probably better off not lugging around a big radar and
>big missiles. Also, since you can generally afford two, or even three,
>pure dogfighters for the cost of one superfighter, you can get a numbers
>advantage. There is one arean where I believe the BVR missileer is very
>important and that's on an aircraft carrier. Although, in the debate of
>F-14D vs. F/A-18E/F (FA5H-5/6 would have been easier to write, oh well)
>I think people over state the Tomcat's BVR or understate the Super
>Bug's. Yes Tomcat gives you longer engagement ranges, but an E/F,
>especially in deck launch interceptor role gives you twice as many
>shots. Sorry about wandering of point.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
lenin
> Isn't the AMRAAM the unknown comodity here. I thought, to date, the
> AMRAAM had a 100% kills, of course I may not have heard of all the
> shots.
Im no expert, but I have heard of one AMRAAM that missed... Anyone know
about this? Personaly, I wonder what the conditions were and what planes
were fighting.
john...@tafensw.edu.au
On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:10:31 GMT, john...@tafensw.edu.au
(john...@tafensw.edu.au) wrote:
>On 17 Mar 1997 14:13:35 GMT, r...@erix.ericsson.se (Robert Virding)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <19970315085...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com (FOR7) writes:
>>>For close in air to air with equal pilots in capability I would easily say
>>>the F-16 hands down. The best dogfighter ever made so far for production!
>>
>>In a similar discussion a few years back someone mentioned that in Red
>>Flag (?) tests Harriers were getting 4-1 kill ratios on F-16s. This
>>was inside BVR as Harriers did not have BVR capabilities then. (Do
>>they now?)
>>
>>Of course this was netinfo and I have no way of knowing if it is to be
>>believed.
>>
>>--
>>Robert Virding Tel: +46 (0)8 719 95 28
>>Computer Science Laboratory Email: r...@erix.ericsson.se
>>Ericsson Telecom AB
>>S-126 25 ÄLVSJÖ, SWEDEN
>>WWW: http://www.ericsson.se/cslab/~rv
>>"Folk säger att jag inte bryr mig om någonting, men det skiter jag i".
>
>Don't the brits now have the same radar in the one of the harrier
>varients as a F18?.
Its the Yanks who have the same rader in the AV8b's as the F18, APG
65, I think.....
>How much faster is the SHAR than the other varients, Does anyone out
>there have some handy comparisons between AV8B's, SHAR's, GR7's.
>
>Such as load, hardpoints, range and speed.
>
>These figures compare AFAIK to several conventional jets.
>
>
>
>
Allan Hill
WRONG! The F-16 requires almost half the maintenance manhours per
flight hour as the F-15E. Personnel requirements won't scale the
same (need more bomb loaders, pilots, etc.), but it won't be twice
as much as an F-15.
Attrition is also not going to be 2X. Current mishap rates are
very comparable for F-15E vs. F-16. (F-15C rates are better,
because they don't fly the more dangerous air-to-ground missions.)
Most mishaps are caused by pilot error, not by equipment failure.
remove this Gareth Bull
john...@tafensw.edu.au (john...@tafensw.edu.au) wrote:
>>On 17 Mar 1997 14:13:35 GMT, r...@erix.ericsson.se (Robert Virding)
>>>>For close in air to air with equal pilots in capability I would easily say
>>>>the F-16 hands down. The best dogfighter ever made so far for production!
>>>
>>>In a similar discussion a few years back someone mentioned that in Red
>>>Flag (?) tests Harriers were getting 4-1 kill ratios on F-16s. This
>>>was inside BVR as Harriers did not have BVR capabilities then. (Do
>>>they now?)
>>>
>>>Of course this was netinfo and I have no way of knowing if it is to be
>>>believed.
>>Don't the brits now have the same radar in the one of the harrier
>>varients as a F18?.
The Sea Harrier FA.2 (the FRS.2 has been redesignated to FA.2) uses
a British radar (Blue something was the development name? I'm not
thinking "Blue Circle", that was a bag of cement used as ballast
before the Sea Harriers had their radars fitted), "Foxhunter" maybe,
or is that the Tornado IDS radar?
The RN tested Sea Harrier with AMRAAM in '94-95 and all Sea Harriers
have been/are being upgraded to carry and use AMRAAM. Until then, Sea
Harriers were only equipped to use Sidewinders as their air-air
missile.
>Its the Yanks who have the same rader in the AV8b's as the F18, APG
>65, I think.....
>>How much faster is the SHAR than the other varients, Does anyone out
>>there have some handy comparisons between AV8B's, SHAR's, GR7's.
>>
>>Such as load, hardpoints, range and speed.
>>
>>These figures compare AFAIK to several conventional jets.
The RN Sea Harrier is based on the original BAe Harrier-1 airframe,
not the modified Harrier-2 airframe McDD developed for the USMC. The
RAF switched to the Harrier-2 airframe starting with the GR-7. The
Spanish and Italian Harriers are also based on the Harrier-2 airframe.
Personally, I was expecting the RN to switch to the Harrier-2 airframe
before the RAF. Among other things, the Harrier-2 has a modified wing
design that increases internal fuel storage, something I'd think would
be an advantage to flight operations in mid-ocean.
Gareth Bull
Garet...@CC.Monash.edu.au
I'm just a jaywalker on the Information-Cul de sac
Christoph Schlegel
remove thisGareth Bull <Garet...@cc.monash.edu.au> wrote
<5ibuu8$d98$1...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>...
>
> [snip snip snip]
>
> >>Don't the brits now have the same radar in the one of the harrier
> >>varients as a F18?.
>
> The Sea Harrier FA.2 (the FRS.2 has been redesignated to FA.2) uses
> a British radar (Blue something was the development name? I'm not
> thinking "Blue Circle", that was a bag of cement used as ballast
> before the Sea Harriers had their radars fitted),
The Sea Harrier FRS.1 had the Ferranti Blue Fox radar, while the FA.2
carries the GEC Blue Vixen radar.
> "Foxhunter" maybe,
> or is that the Tornado IDS radar?
No, Foxhunter is the Tornado F.3 radar, the IDS uses a TI multi-mode radar,
which will, at least in Germany, undergo a serious upgrade to include
things like SSAR, ISAR and DBS.
best regards,
Christoph
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <33492E...@lmtas.lmco.com>,
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that given twice as many
F-16's as F-15's, you will have at least twice the attrition (note: not
attrition rate). I believe that the F-16 will have a little higher
attrition rate than the F-15 due to having a single engine.
>Attrition is also not going to be 2X. Current mishap rates are
>very comparable for F-15E vs. F-16. (F-15C rates are better,
>because they don't fly the more dangerous air-to-ground missions.)
>Most mishaps are caused by pilot error, not by equipment failure.
>
As I pointed out, the attrition, given twice as many airplanes, will be
2X.
Dennis
AFMSS Robi
RJTintner wrote:
"OK... The F-16 is capable of much higher performance in A-A combat, as
well as supersonic flight at high altitudes. In a war situation, i.e.
Gulf
War, the F-16s will be sent in firwst because they are simply a better
aircraft for the situation. Fuel consumption being lower, the cost which
the F-16 operates at per hour is much less than that of an F-15. The F-15
was designed before the F-16, making it a less aerodynamic and sleek
aircraft. Over all, the F-16 can out perform the F-15 in just about every
situation."
Oh come on, young fighter pilot wannabe. No F-16 every made a succesfull
strike without an F-15 escort or F-15 fighter sweep. The don't get the
name "Butt Pirates" for nothing.
And yes, the F-16 is cheaper (not much cheaper) to operate than the mighty
Eagle, but then again, you get what you pay for.
The F-15 IS an "older" design. The SR-71 is a fine example of an older
design that has no equal. The F-15 was designed around it's radar and
armament. It does it's job with no equal. I need say no more.
AFMSS Robi
29crosby <29cr...@telis.org> writes:
In "Pentagon Paradox" James P. Stevenson discusses, at times in
excutiating detail, F-15 vs. F-16 range and speed. According to "PP" the
F-16 is longer ranged on internal fuel than the F-15. Also, while the
F-15 can go Mach 2.6, its usable combat speed is Mach 1.8. To get beyond
that speed you have to remove all of your missiles (4 AIM-7 Sarrow and 4
AIM-9 Sidewinders) and all of your 20mm ammo (~1000 rnds). You go full
burner and get to Mach 2.3, then you hit the Vmax(?) button. Now you are
about fifty miles from your field and going Mach 2.6. Hopefully there is
a tanker nearby because you are about to run out of gas. Also, your
ground crew is pretty annoyed at you because they've got a lot of work
ahead of them, either a major check out or removal of the engines. I
believe (though I'm not sure) and F-16 can reach Mach 2.0 with four
AIM-9 Sidewinder and full ammo load (500 rnds?)."
This is unadulterated crap. I'd love to see you come blazing at me at 2.0
with heat and guns. If you could get there.
Those funny ramp like things on the engines of an eagle are designed to
control the airflow to those marvelous 229's. The F-16 has no variable
geometry inlets. It's design is a compromise to keep it cheap (which it
isn't). This limits it's capabilities in the high supersonic, high
altitude envelope.
The idea is to get there with the mustest the fustest, find you in the
clutter and shove a slammer (or two or three) in your face. This not only
takes a great aircraft, but constant training, SA, discipline, trickery,
cunning and deceit. The eagle makes it easier because it was designed to
do just that. What a surprise it was when they took that wonderful A/A
design and strapped bombs on it! Not a pound for air to ground at first
resulted in a superior design that worked for air to ground also!
Hey Raz! Jump in here! You gotta say something about those guys that sit
there on their asses pondering statistics!
AFMSS Robi
na...@Glue.umd.edu (David "Bat Turn" Hyde) Wrote:
">F-15s can hold 9G just fine, its the pilot's that are the problems.
Are you sure about that? Looked at a doghouse plot recently? What's the
Dash-1 g limit? And if a guy can't hack 9g's do they take him out of
Vipers and put him in Eagles? "
Dash 1 limit is 9.0 G's with the Overload Warning System OWS operating.
You see, some skill is required on the part of an Eagle pilot for he
musn't over-g the hardware.Audible beeps tell the jock when he's
approaching the limit and "betty" will inform him of an Over-G. However,
several eagles have pulled over 12 symetric Gs with nary so much as a
popped fastener. The F-16 pilot on the other hand, just pulls on the side
stick and lets "HAL" pull the allowable amount of G's. Easy - No brainer,
but this "automated" function limits the jet to a max 9 and due to the
high onset rate that HAL provides, oft times puts the pilot directly to
sleep. HAL can be programmed to limit G for stores carried on board.
Somebody's great idea to save wear and tear that cost a lot of F-16
drivers their lives.
AFMSS Robi
Allan Hill writes:"Attrition is also not going to be 2X. Current mishap
rates are
very comparable for F-15E vs. F-16. (F-15C rates are better,
because they don't fly the more dangerous air-to-ground missions.)
Most mishaps are caused by pilot error, not by equipment failure."
Whoa! Hold your horses there!
1) Mishap rates vs. Kill ratios are two separate and distinct statistics.
Mishap rates are in three classes, A,B, and C. Class A's are fatalities or
damage more than so many bucks (I forget the number $200,000?). B's and
C's are strictly financialy related. Shutting down an engine due to a Main
Turbine bearing failure is a Class C in an Eagle and ususally a Class A in
an F-16 (single engine weakness I guess). They don't call 16's Lawn Darts
for nothing. F-16's terminated single seat Night LANTIRN rides because of
so many Class A's (ususally spatial disorientation). F-15E's keep on doing
it.
2) Kill ratios are how many bad guys I kill for how many good guys I lose.
The Eagle was designed for a 20:1 Kill ratio. That sounds rediculous, but
then again, Eagles have shot down many enemy fighters, and not lost one in
A/A combat yet.
3) You are right. Attrition is not going to be 2X. Depending on the
adversary and his tactics, it will probably be 5 or 7:1. That will
decemate those 200 F-16's poping up over the ridgeline with their radars
gained down due to ground proximity. The eagle's FAVORITE diet, is little
falcons flying in the weeds.
HeadShok
>The Sea Harrier FA.2 (the FRS.2 has been redesignated to FA.2) uses
>a British radar (Blue something was the development name? I'm not
>thinking "Blue Circle", that was a bag of cement used as ballast
>before the Sea Harriers had their radars fitted), "Foxhunter" maybe,
>or is that the Tornado IDS radar?
The radar that is used by the Sea Harrier is the Ferranti 'Blue Fox'
pulse-doppler multi-mode radar.
Natural Born Cereal Killer
Allan Hill <Allan....@lmtas.lmco.com> writes:
>WRONG! The F-16 requires almost half the maintenance manhours per
>flight hour as the F-15E. Personnel requirements won't scale the
>same (need more bomb loaders, pilots, etc.), but it won't be twice
>as much as an F-15.
At least, until you go into overtime or start considering
the benefits package each person gets. Hint: let's say a person
makes $10/hr. Your cost is going to be more like $30/hr for them
as an employer. There is a reason expensive robots replace
cheap humans, and this is it. I'm hardly an accountant, but
manpower costs a pretty substantial amount and is not to be ignored.
Additionally, for each man on the flight line you've a wife and
kid you're paying the insurance for, not to mention the housing,
schools, etc... etc...
I'm not arguing that the recurring costs outweigh the
fixed cost of the aircraft, I'm just trying to put manpower hours
into perspective.
>Attrition is also not going to be 2X. Current mishap rates are
>very comparable for F-15E vs. F-16. (F-15C rates are better,
>because they don't fly the more dangerous air-to-ground missions.)
>Most mishaps are caused by pilot error, not by equipment failure.
Most mishaps don't involve being shot down. Mishaps are
not kills, and kills tend to happen in a war.
--
* Dan Sorenson DoD #1066 ASSHOLE #35 vik...@probe.net *
* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
Paul J. Adam
In article <5iermq$1...@news.manawatu.gen.nz>, HeadShok
<9611...@uni.massey.ac.nz> writes
>The radar that is used by the Sea Harrier is the Ferranti 'Blue Fox'
>pulse-doppler multi-mode radar.
That's the FRS.1 - the Sea Harrier FA.2 replaces Blue Fox with the more
powerful and capable Blue Vixen.
HeadShok
Is this discussion about the best fighter in the WORLD or just the
best of the FOUR common fighters in America? It is highly probable
that the best fighter in the WORLD would not be American!
Grumman, McDonnell-Douglas and General Dynamics versus MiG, Sukhoi,
Panavia, Saab, Eurofighter, Bae, IAI, AIDC, Dassault, Atlas, Chengdu
and Shenyang. Who would win? Likely winners: Eurofighter, MiG and
Sukhoi. Possibles: M-D, G-D, IAI, Dassault.
Please when considering the best fighter in the WORLD take into
account THE WORLD and not just a one-eyed view which does not take in
the FACTS. If the facts were taken into account your choices would be
much different!!
Next time GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND!!!!!!!
David Lentz
Now consider this. For the past decade, the kill ratio for US built
aircraft, Tomcats, Eagles, Fighting Falcons, and Hornets, in air-to-air
combat has been 165 to 1, source "Air Force Times, April 14, 1997.
You argue that based on paper traits some aircraft is better than the
aforemention foursome. However based on real world combat experience,
U.S. built aircraft give a licking and keep on ticking. So far to other
fighter in the world have been able to beat the U.S. built big four for
over a decade.
David
Ptolomy
afms...@aol.com (AFMSS Robi) wrote:
> 29crosby <29cr...@telis.org> writes:
I believe (though I'm not sure) and F-16 can reach Mach 2.0 with four
>AIM-9 Sidewinder and full ammo load (500 rnds?)."
Nope.
Clean, the F-16 can barely do M2.1
With a max combat load yer lucky to achieve M1.5 and if you manage,
you wont be there long, as you will exhaust your fuel FAST. And on a
finer point, the last I heard, all USAF F-16 were flight restricted
to less than M2.0 anyway. I will ask the Lockheed/Martin Rep again on
Monday why this is - I have forgotten. As far as the fuel
consumpiton/range thing goes, The -16 has an option of two basic
engines : the PW F100 series and the GE F-110 series engines. In full
AB's they drink about 49,000 and 54,000 lbs/hr respectively. Given
the F-16's not so generous internal fuel load (not that you could cram
anything else in it anyway), this does not add up to a great deal of
range clean, let alone dirty! Just my US$0.02 worth.
Regards, JCD A&P F-16 Jet Mech.
David Lentz
My point? I really don't have one than to be sceptical of attempts to
prove which fighter aircraft is better based on a paper comparison. My
feeing is that the Sea Harrier would not do extremely well against a
first line advesery, but I will not attemp to establish my point.
Often air-to-air superiority is established by some saall and overlooked
point. For examples the British Spitfire had trouble keeping up with
the German (ME-109?) in a dive because the Spitfire was used a
carborator, whereas the Germans had fuel injection.
During World War Two in the Pacific, the Japanese lost more pilots in
part because their planes lacked armor protection for the pilot.
American airman could get shot down, live, get rescued and fly again.
Whereas the Japanese pilot would survive the shoot down.
In a real world dog fight the difference can boil down to something as
seemingly trivial as armor or fuel injection. Few, if any, paper
discussions of fighter aircraft get down to that kind of detail.
David
Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
> In article <334EB2...@pop.frontiernet.net>, David Lentz
> <dle...@pop.frontiernet.net> writes
> >Now consider this. For the past decade, the kill ratio for US built
> >aircraft, Tomcats, Eagles, Fighting Falcons, and Hornets, in air-to-air
> >combat has been 165 to 1, source "Air Force Times, April 14, 1997.
>
> British Sea Harriers are 19-0 air-to-air: lower score, but a better
> ratio :)
>
> Point? Only that some aircraft have "succeeded" by deterring likely
> adversaries so much that they haven't needed to prove themselves in
> combat :) Or have had fewer opportunities to go to war. Doesn't mean
> they're less effective.
>
> Or, for instance in the Gulf War - the only fairly recent chance for the
> Mirage 2000 to prove itself, for instance - that aircraft was kept in
> the rear because the Iraqis operated Mirage-series aircraft also and
> there was concern about possible "friendly fire" accidents. Does that
> decision make the Mirage a failure, since Coalition Mirages saw no air-
> to-air combat?
Paul J. Adam
In article <334EB2...@pop.frontiernet.net>, David Lentz
<dle...@pop.frontiernet.net> writes
>Now consider this. For the past decade, the kill ratio for US built
>aircraft, Tomcats, Eagles, Fighting Falcons, and Hornets, in air-to-air
>combat has been 165 to 1, source "Air Force Times, April 14, 1997.
British Sea Harriers are 19-0 air-to-air: lower score, but a better
ratio :)
Point? Only that some aircraft have "succeeded" by deterring likely
adversaries so much that they haven't needed to prove themselves in
combat :) Or have had fewer opportunities to go to war. Doesn't mean
they're less effective.
Or, for instance in the Gulf War - the only fairly recent chance for the
Mirage 2000 to prove itself, for instance - that aircraft was kept in
the rear because the Iraqis operated Mirage-series aircraft also and
there was concern about possible "friendly fire" accidents. Does that
decision make the Mirage a failure, since Coalition Mirages saw no air-
to-air combat?
>You argue that based on paper traits some aircraft is better than the
>aforemention foursome. However based on real world combat experience,
>U.S. built aircraft give a licking and keep on ticking. So far to other
>fighter in the world have been able to beat the U.S. built big four for
>over a decade.
When was the last time the US fought Britain or France? Certainly before
the Wright Brothers. You may be ascribing to superior aircraft what
actually is due to superior pilot training.
JA Culhane
if only one 14, 15, 16 or 18 has been lost that leaves three types which
have had now losses. All have 19 kills. Even by that reasoning US
fighters still rule
Jim Culhane
Yama
David Lentz wrote:
>
> Now consider this. For the past decade, the kill ratio for US built
> aircraft, Tomcats, Eagles, Fighting Falcons, and Hornets, in air-to-air
> combat has been 165 to 1, source "Air Force Times, April 14, 1997.
>
> aforemention foursome. However based on real world combat experience,
> U.S. built aircraft give a licking and keep on ticking. So far to other
> fighter in the world have been able to beat the U.S. built big four for
> over a decade.
Surprisingly enough, kill ratios do not tell much about aircrafts, but
about air forces which operate them, and tactical/strategical situation.
In Winter War, Finnish Fokker D.XXI's gained good kill ratio (12:1), but
I haven't heard anyone claiming that it was better fighter than it's
opponents (I-16 and I-153), actually there is common agreement that
Russian planes were much better.There are other similar examples as
well.
As Sun Tzu said, lifting the feather does not require great strength,
hearing the thunder does not prove good hearing. That US aircraft have
kicked poorly equipped, lead and maintenanced 3rd world airforces is no
proof whatsoever about their supposed technical superiority.
However, it can be argued what good it is to compare planes at all, as
small and debatable differences in performance do not have much effect
in RL anyway.
Bottom line? It's wisest to assume that all planes in wider/longer term
service are 'good enough' for their jobs and then quantity, tactics,
training, logistics, conditions etc. decide which side will be
victorious
HeadShok
David Lentz <dle...@pop.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Now consider this. For the past decade, the kill ratio for US built
>aircraft, Tomcats, Eagles, Fighting Falcons, and Hornets, in air-to-air
>combat has been 165 to 1, source "Air Force Times, April 14, 1997.
>You argue that based on paper traits some aircraft is better than the
>aforemention foursome. However based on real world combat experience,
>U.S. built aircraft give a licking and keep on ticking. So far to other
>fighter in the world have been able to beat the U.S. built big four for
>over a decade.
>David
Kill ratio for US built aircraft? Where was this war? Are you just
talking of MOCK combats competed by US aircraft against US aircraft?
If it was the war case, who was fighting? Israel vrs Syria? Or as it
is better known, Latest provided US aircraft vrs decrepit, second-hand
MiG's. Hmmm! I wonder who won? If real war situations are considered
then can the training and skill of the pilots have any influence? OF
COURSE!!
As there is no level ground or point of view in which all planes can
be compared equally in combat we must turn to the statistics! Most new
planes have never been in combat, does that mean that they are not as
good as planes which have combat experience in a situation such as
Vietnam over 20 years ago?
If you quote the Gulf War, the only major fighters were American.
Could that explain their higher score (including one UN observer
helicopter). The Iraqi's had what? MiG 23's/25's?
You cannot base what is a good plane by wether a country that flys it
gets itself into a war, then you miss the majority of planes that are
probably the best.
David John Esson Christie
> British Sea Harriers are 19-0 air-to-air: lower score, but a better
> ratio :)
If you are referring to the Falklands conflict Paul, I thought the kill
ratio was 27 - 0.
> Or, for instance in the Gulf War - the only fairly recent chance for the
> Mirage 2000 to prove itself, for instance - that aircraft was kept in
> the rear because the Iraqis operated Mirage-series aircraft also and
> there was concern about possible "friendly fire" accidents. Does that
> decision make the Mirage a failure, since Coalition Mirages saw no air-
> to-air combat?
In the Gulf War most kills were apparently made by F15s because they had
two IFF systems and were most likely to be cleared to fire. The last
thing the american leaders of the coalition wanted was casualties from
friendly fire. They also have longer range than most types and were
numerous (although not the most common coalition aircraft involved in
the comflict).
On paper there are many very capable fighter aircraft in the world,
flown by well trained, well supported aircrew. But not too many types
have seen active combat. There can be no doubting the air to air
capabilities of the US forces, for the history books confirm this. The
capabilities of most other air forces and their platforms remains
speculative.
Incidentally, I wouldn't imagine anyone would confuse an iraqi Mirage F1
with a french Mirage 2000. It's more likely that the short range of the
Mirage vis a vis the F15 and the smaller numbers of aircraft involved
prevented that aircraft from participating in air to air conflict.