Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

I'm new here. Anyone got any idea wich one is better?

F-16.net Sponsor

F-16 in my book...it (F2) does well for its operating environment but is nothing compared to the Block 52 Falcon.

Consider the aircraft is taken (most major components from the Viper design with LM Aero approval) Mitsubishi made their own modifications (not bad either) but still...no match, not really...that's my take on it

Watch this the F-2 as an more agile improvement of the f-16 . I don't know much about the weapons systems and the range of it. But I think the Japanese one could win in a dogfight.

Well..that remains to be seen but it is a thought Smile

Meathook wrote:

F-16 in my book...it (F2) does well for its operating environment but is nothing compared to the Block 52 Falcon.

Consider the aircraft is taken (most major components from the Viper design with LM Aero approval) Mitsubishi made their own modifications (not bad either) but still...no match, not really...that's my take on it

Well In my book just because the F-2 is litle known it should never underestimated and underrated.

The only reason why the F-2 wont out do a block 52 is because it does not posess a true BVR active missile. However:

1)One is being developed and due to enter service soon
2) It has 11 hardpoints as oposed to the falcons 9, i.e. 2 extra AA missiles
3) its has a larger AG payload too.
4) It features AESA radar from factory
5) Radicaly redesigned cockpit

you see where this is going to?

If it has to be compared to any F-16 variant, you have to look to block 60 instead.

Actually...I could care less........but you have a nice day

What a pretty atittude...first you post you opinion and if others dont coincide, "you could care less"?

Why did you post here at all in the first place?

What a pretty atittude...first you post you opinion and if others dont coincide, "you could care less"?

Why did you post here at all in the first place?

I am sick of talking about 'what if's".....

bommel wrote:

im new here anyone got any idea wich one is better?

Well, if you consider the air to ground missions, i bet the "Made in Japan" machine has more striking power due to its bigger wing, and i suppose, greater range due to better aerodynamic performance. On the other hand, it's lower wing loading, should have a negative impact on its gust response.

Considering the air to air role, i suppose that the -52 outaccelerates the F-2, has better SEP, but lower instantaneous turn rate. If i had 2 squadrons of these machines, i'd have the F-2s for A-G MISSIONS and the Block 52 for the A-A role.
This is my personal opinion and i'll be very glad to discuss it, and why not, after a fruitious conversation, revise it!

Currently the F-2 is the only plane with AESA radar in japan. Its known that AESA counterparts of mechanical array radars have nearly twice the range.
Its possible that the one on the F-2 has more range than the APG-68, and due to inherent technology charestics, it also makes a whole lot harder for enemy try to evade it by fooling arround with the dopler effect in notch and beam manuevers. Chances are anyone trying to do this agains the F-2 is going to further loose the initiative rather than gain it.

The ability to provide the pilot with wide angle near instantanous real time situation of the airspace in front of him is an enourmous asset, and cant be underestimated.

Speaking of aerodynamics, lower wing loading is bad for low altitude buffering but is actualy good for manueverability with heavier loads, or higher altitudes. So where the falcon behaves like a bus with significant AG load or flying high in intercept missions might not be the same case as with the F-2.

Too bad the F-2 is not (yet) equiped with more modern BVR missiles. I bet if their F-15J's donne some AA training against the F-2's the eagle drivers wouldnt be as confortable at high altitude as they would against a regular falcon.

Well In my book just because the F-2 is litle known it should never underestimated and underrated.

The only reason why the F-2 wont out do a block 52 is because it does not posess a true BVR active missile. However:

1)One is being developed and due to enter service soon
2) It has 11 hardpoints as oposed to the falcons 9, [Link pending approval] 2 extra AA missiles
3) its has a larger AG payload too.
4) It features AESA radar from factory
5) Radicaly redesigned cockpit

you see where this is going to?

If it has to be compared to any F-16 variant, you have to look to block 60 instead.[/quote]

There would be little to no advantage of a block 60 over a block 50/52, as a matter of fact it may be worse due to the added weight of conformal fuel tanks (if so configured)

Conformal tanks have little impact if they are empty. You can spend them on CAP and fight with a light load. Further more they are removable, or mouted back in just 2 hours. Block 60 is overal more powerfull than the 52 or even the 52+. Plus 52's have APG-68 and 60's have APG-80 AESA, plus a very nifty IRST, wich if I read right on certain articles it can be used for more things than just short range silent AA IR attacks.

ok thank you guys for all the info

Pilotasso wrote:

Too bad the F-2 is not (yet) equiped with more modern BVR missiles. I bet if their F-15J's donne some AA training against the F-2's the eagle drivers wouldnt be as confortable at high altitude as they would against a regular falcon.

The most likely candidate for a BVR Missile for the F-2 would be the AAM-4, Japan's answer to the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16C block 52 versus Mitsubishi F-2