Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Well, if that's the case, BRING BACK THE ZIPPER Very Happy

!!!

F-16.net Sponsor

Parrothead, I couldn't agree with you more. The F-104 is a great aircraft, and is one of my favorites, too bad it had to be retired...

Also renatohm, if what your saying is true, that would mean that an F-16 armed with an AIM-9X missile and JHMCS helmet could be a worthy adversary against an F-22 or a
Su-35/37?

Quote:

Parrothead, I couldn't agree with you more. The F-104 is a great aircraft, and is one of my favorites, too bad it had to be retired...

You sure it was the F-104 he meant? There is nothing agile about the F-104.

Last edited by agilefalcon16 on Jun 26, 2005 - 08:58 PM; edited 1 time in total

Yes, I'm sure. In an magizine issue of Combat aircraft, they say that pilots use to refer to the F-104 as the Zipper. Also, when I said that the F-104 was great, I just meant that it was a great intercepter of its time. Yeah, but there is nothing agile about it.

agilefalcon16 wrote:

Also renatohm, if what your saying is true, that would mean that an F-16 armed with an AIM-9X missile and JHMCS helmet could be a worthy adversary against an F-22 or a
Su-35/37?

You are quite right. In previous wars, tha airframe/performance/agility/pilot combination was the most important factor to win air wars. But no more. Modern missiles can do what old missiles and guns cannot: engage enemies in HOBS (High-Off BoreSight angle) and maneuver better than any human pilot would ever be ble to withstand.

I will quote myself (from a post in the Mig-23MLD vs F-16 forum, Page 2.

"1st of all, it's rather naive to compare any 2 fighters in dogfight. If you compare the latest version Floggers to the earliest versions Falcons, for example, the falcons are dead. Venezuela's Falcons are of the 1st gen Falcons, operate with early versions. In http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/r77.html, there are pics of a MiG-21 and a MiG-23 armed with R-77s. I wonder what would happen with an ancient Falcon armed with 4 J/L/M Sidewinders facing a Flogger with 4 AMRAAMskis...

2nd, and partially contained in the above, a fighter is as good as the weapons it carries. A Falcon turning at 9 Gs cannot outmaneuver a Python 4 maneuvering at 70 Gs. In other words, if your Falcon armed with '9 Mikes' faces a Chilean F-5 armed with the Israeli missiles + DASH helmets http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ ... hon4.html, you may get killed.

3rd, pilot skills/tactics/ROE must be taken into account. If the F-4s who faced MiGs in Viet Nam were allowed to fire the Sparrows in BVR fighting, the Fishbeds wouldn't get a single kill. What would happen to an Egyptian rookie facing a Russian vet? And how effective would be the AIM-9X with Soviet ground-controlled interception (GCI) tactics?

4th - and the most important - a fighter isn't alone. US pilots will most probably have AWACS support, tankers (allowing more AB use; remember that Floggers cannot perform air refueling), numerical superiority, ECM support, scorting F-15s, etc. etc. etc.. If any, only NATO and Russia can have anything comparable in terms of quality and quantity. I hope not to see NATO and/or Russia fighting the US in my lifetime... That is why Yugoslavia could not get advantage over NATO, and Lybia could not beat Israel, Iraq could not beat the Allies... Technology and numbers."

So, any fighter with good missiles and EW (Electronic Warfare) support - radar, ECM (Electronic CounterMeasures), communications, etc. etc. will be able to counter any fighter.
Imagine an F-15S (Saudi Arabian version) with AIM-9Ms facing a Kuwaitian A-4 with AIM-9X (or ASRAAM, or IRIS-T, or R-73, or Python 4/5 or similar). Let's imagine, for a moment, that ROE (rules of engagement) are tha same of Viet Nam, that is, you can only fire after positive visual identification. Tha A-4 is a small plane, and the F-15 is quite large.
That enables the A-4 to acquire 1st. Acquire 1st means fire 1st. The F-15 will have to maneuver hard, since the moden IIR (Imaging Infra-Red) sensor is, for all practical considerations, imune to flares. Then at least one of these will happen: the Eagle will loose a lot of airspeed, the pilot will suffer G-LOC (G-forces induced Loss Of Consciousness), the fighter and/or the engine(s) will stall, the pilot will loose SA (Situation Awareness). Just one of these would be bad enough, but probably 2 or more will happen together.
So, what happens? Even if the pilot evades the 1st missile - which is not very probable - a 2nd one will knock the Eagle out of the sky.

With adequate data link and radar support, a fighter can fire a missile in complete EMCON (EMissions CONtrol), which means it will be very hard to detect before firing if you dont't acively use the radar - which is a deadly sin, since ESM (Electronic Support Measures) can detect active emissions well before the emitter can detect the target. The F/A-22 and the F-35 will be able to do the same with their own LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) radars, the Gripen can do that in a 4-plane formation with a leader actively using its radar while the others fly in complete EMCON, etc.. This will pretty much end the dogfight era, until all fighters are stealth - being so hard to spot, engagements will probably be WVR (Within Visual Range) again.

Quote:

Time has changed, and tail-chase dogfights are possibly part of the past, since a fighter with a modern High-Off BoreSight (HOBS) missile will be highly effective. Some people say, with a good level of confidence, that an A-4 with AIM-9X and JHMCS, for example, will be at least as effective in dogfights as the F-22, since the missile and the helmet are largely platform-independent.

Quote:

Well, if that's the case, BRING BACK THE ZIPPER Very Happy

!!!

Yes, I did mean the F-104 Thumb

! Here's my thinking - I know the A-4 is a wonderfully nimble little jet, but the F-104 has its strengths, too. It's fast (especially down low Wink

), it can run level intercepts at altitudes that would make other jets gasp for air, and when used with the proper tactics, it can still be a deadly machine . Add the proper avionics upgrades, maybe a new engine, and the AIM-9X, and I think the other guy would have some serious trouble on his hands Twisted Evil

!

Quote:

This will pretty much end the dogfight era, until all fighters are stealth - being so hard to spot, engagements will probably be WVR (Within Visual Range) again.

You may be right, but I'm still a bit skeptical. They said the dogfight was a thing of the past before... Now if everyone gets stealth jets, we'll really see who's got some good pilots!!!

Quote:

it can run level intercepts at altitudes that would make other jets gasp for air

On at least two occasions German F-104's left their pilots gasping, and suffocating, while the excellent autopilot in the plain took it to northern Norway before it ran out of fuel. Norwegian F-5’s tried to intercept it to avoid a crash in populated areas, but were unsuccessful in intercepting, but the F-104’s crashed without harming anybody on the ground. I believe the 60 day LOX Converter check was introduced as a result of these two incidents.

Just a little history...

cru wrote:

Quote:

Lybia could not beat Israel

When was this episode?

I really apologize! Lebanon, not Lybia, lost the Bekaa Valley War... Sorry for the HUGE mistake. Embarassed

Parrothead: I'm skeptical too, but the "previous" statement on the end of dogfights was made in the 1st generation of AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles). They were very enthusiastic on the test results, but the weaknesses of the missiles were soon discovered. But some 50 years of evolution improved the missiles a lot. These missiles have more computational power than most jets, their sensors are highly ECM-resistant, ant they are really fast and agile, because they were meant to defeat fighters as agile as the Viper and the Flanker, not bombers. So I expect that, this time, the missiles are really effective.

renatohm, I hear ya, but I still want some good guys at the sticks and a GUN in the jet! After all, what happens when you're winchester on missiles and you see a target of opportunity? Computers have issues and mechanical devices don't always work, so I'll never trust a missile completely Wink

.

Parrothead I agree, even jets in the future should always be designed to have a gun. Because when a pilot is out of missiles, at least he would still have a weapon.

Forum Veteran Joined: Nov 07, 2003 - 09:12 PM Posts: 901

guys, I have came across an article in Air Fleet Magazine, that speaks about, how the Flanker's super maneuver can put it in a better position to fire the HOBS missile first and also to escape the kill zone of such the missile. I will try to pull out the article. Not sure if I can reproduce it words to words here.

Quote:

I really apologize! Lebanon, not Lybia, lost the Bekaa Valley War... Sorry for the HUGE mistake

It was Syrian AF the Israelis beat over the Berkaa valley

Last edited by agilefalcon16 on Jul 12, 2005 - 08:34 PM; edited 1 time in total

I have been doing some research on F-16s with thrust-vectoring engines, and I have found out that both GE and PW offered thrust-vectoring engines for UAE's Block 60 F-16.
It turned out, however, that Lockheed ended up giving the new Viper just an improved GE engine that can generate 32,000 pounds of thrust, but with no thrust-vectoing nozzel.

Why do you guys think Lockheed did not choose a thrust-vectoring nozzel for the Block 60?

I think this is the last step in missile development before airborne lasers are small and powerful enough to equip smaller jets (instead of B-747's and Herk's). Soon turning and burning will be less important. More important is long range indentification + lasers.

Agilefalcon theoreticaly speaking putting on the matv nozzel or a F-22 style nozzel is feasable, the photo of the F-16 with the F-22 style wing was an early model of what the block-60 was eventually going to look like and this is a model not a composite the model was built shortly after the end of the gulf war,but of course the actual block-60 turned out to be a conventional design, however im already building my block-70 the 2-D thurst vectoring nozzel and F-22 wing i think this version should be called the super falcon.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Super maneuverable F-16 - Theoretical question