F-16 Reference
5th Gen Fighters
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Mambo
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 05:20 PM
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Which is better? And why? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 27, 2012 - 1:15 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Normsta3
|
Posted: Aug 12, 2003 - 07:00 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jun 10, 2003 - 03:08 AM
Posts: 136
Status: Offline
|
This is a tough call, mainly because the 2 fighters have a great deal alike. I'd have to say that Lieven summed it up pretty well.
In that particular exercise, one Rafale took down 2 Falcons. Now, that would surely say something important, right? Maybe. Everyone on this board knows that its the training of the pilots that's important, and since we don't know who was the better trained pilot, it's hard to tell.
And then there's the cost of the aircraft. If the F-16 were say half as expensive as the Rafale, then that encounter could be considered a draw. Of course, to the Air Force, that wouldn't mean jack cuz they just lost 2, not 1, but 2 of their pilots, so it really all depends on how you look at things.
Check out the following links for info on the Rafale. Hopefully, you and anyone else who cares about this topic will be able to reach some sort of conclusion.
http://drs.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=Rafale ... ts/rafale/
http://drs.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=Rafale ... ts/rafale/
http://drs.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=Rafale ... rafale.htm
Some of these links don't have the highest quality sites, but they should offer at least some decent - quality data. But anyways, let's just get down to the nitty - gritty, is the F-16 better than the Rafale?
Assuming you're talking about the newest versions (Block 50 & up), then in turns of speed and range, definitely. However, the Rafale is noticeably stealthier and more maneueverable. Both seem to be equal in terms of payload diversity, both being capable of lifting a very wide range of weaponry into the air, though I think the F-16 can care more weapons than the Rafale. So basically, I think it's a toss - up, depending on what one thinks makes a fighter better than another. I'd love to say the F-16 like Lieven, but he & I both know it's not quite that simple. Peace.
P.S. - Of course, if it was my baby the F-16XL, then of course it'd be better.  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Normsta3
|
Posted: Aug 12, 2003 - 07:11 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jun 10, 2003 - 03:08 AM
Posts: 136
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Commando
|
Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 02:53 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 14, 2003 - 07:39 PM
Posts: 67
Location: Qatar
Status: Offline
|
Yet again people compair fighters in different classes.  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Normsta3
|
Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 05:04 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jun 10, 2003 - 03:08 AM
Posts: 136
Status: Offline
|
While they may be in different classes, both fighters share a few common characteristics, and so it would make for a very interesting match - up. Not to mention, that's the fun of a discussion board, to talk about stuff like this.  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Commando
|
Posted: Aug 17, 2003 - 06:11 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 14, 2003 - 07:39 PM
Posts: 67
Location: Qatar
Status: Offline
|
There still in different classes... |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Normsta3
|
Posted: Aug 17, 2003 - 05:30 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jun 10, 2003 - 03:08 AM
Posts: 136
Status: Offline
|
In the end Commando, you're right, no matter what I say, they are indeed in different classes. However, in combat, aircraft may not always be matched up against other aircraft of the same class, so these topics do hold some value to them. Granted that I don't see the U.S. going to war with Great Britain any time soon , I still think such discussions are quite interesting. Look at Top Gun (both the movie and the actual fighter school). Some of the best pilots in the USN have to go up against F-16s simulating MIG-29s, and while they're only in F-14s! That sounds like a pretty big mismatch in close-range combat, don't ya think, especially considering how the F-16N isn't weighed down by anything really, meaning it can show some of the true potential of the F-16. Those simulations should be quite a challenge for the pilots, and yet, the fighters are definitely in noticeably different classes, aren't they? I'm guessing so, though I'm not quite sure what you mean when you talk about the class of a fighter. In the case of a F-14 vs. F-16, do you mean a fleet defender against a multi-role fighter? , lol, lol, cuz I'm not quite sure. The point is, for some reason the Navy thought for a while (not anymore I don't think) that matching up fighters in different classes held so merit or importance, so the same could technically be applied to this thread.  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Commando
|
Posted: Aug 17, 2003 - 05:56 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 14, 2003 - 07:39 PM
Posts: 67
Location: Qatar
Status: Offline
|
Well, War and Classes are different, a Rafale should go up against a F-22, and a JF should go up against a Gripen, in the UN bombings over Kosovo, F-16s Shot down MIG-29s, not MIG-29s shot down F/A-18s  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Normsta3
|
Posted: Aug 17, 2003 - 06:21 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jun 10, 2003 - 03:08 AM
Posts: 136
Status: Offline
|
Good point there Commando, but aren't those classes supposed to prepare the pilots for possible war scenarios? If not, then what is the point of the classes, because that is what I thought their purpose was. But your matchups do seem pretty accurate, so frankly I don't know what to think, , lol, lol, lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Commando
|
Posted: Aug 18, 2003 - 01:37 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 14, 2003 - 07:39 PM
Posts: 67
Location: Qatar
Status: Offline
|
| lol!...I'm saying that it ain't smart to send a F-16 up against an SU-30 alone one-on-one...In the bombings they knew that Yuguslavia had MIG-29s and lower aircraft, thats why they sent F-16s to fight them instead of F-15s, the threat wasn't that large in air-to-air battles. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Normsta3
|
Posted: Aug 18, 2003 - 09:01 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jun 10, 2003 - 03:08 AM
Posts: 136
Status: Offline
|
| Ok, I see your point, but umm . . . . what is a Su-30? I only know of the more famous members of the Su family, such as the as the Su-27 and up (35, 37, etc.). Is the Su-30 a really good fighter? More detail would be welcomed. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Commando
|
Posted: Aug 19, 2003 - 05:22 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 14, 2003 - 07:39 PM
Posts: 67
Location: Qatar
Status: Offline
|
| The SU-30 is the Russian version of the American F-15E, like the F-15E it is a two-seat multi mission aircraft, India already has it, Pakistan is trying to get it along with F-16s at the same time. The SU-35, and SU-37 will be there to counter the F-22, Rafale, Tyhpoon, etc |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
ysslah
|
Posted: Aug 19, 2003 - 10:09 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 18, 2003 - 01:37 PM
Posts: 84
Status: Offline
|
| Ok..... I think they are in the same class. I don't think Rafale is bad. However, I don't think those French missles, such as MICA or Magic, are as good as AIM120C or AIM9X. Unless they face each other with no missles at all, I think Falcon's gonna send Rafale driver to heaven(may be hell?lol). |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Commando
|
Posted: Aug 19, 2003 - 05:03 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 14, 2003 - 07:39 PM
Posts: 67
Location: Qatar
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Normsta3
|
Posted: Aug 20, 2003 - 06:29 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jun 10, 2003 - 03:08 AM
Posts: 136
Status: Offline
|
I'm kinda feelin' ysslah on this one; I also don't really have a great deal of confidence in those French AA missiles. Granted that the Rafale may very well use a combination of the ASRAAM & AMRAAM missiles, but if not, then I think the Rafale has a problem.
The MICA & Magic just don't seem all that impressive to me, that's all. Of course, the obvious reason is probably my lack of knowlegde on them, but I just don't hear those missiles mentioned as being as deadly as say the R-73 Archer or Sidewinder family (AIM-9L and up that is). And not to diss the French either, cuz I know they make some good missiles. Anyone every seen what a Exocet can do,  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|