F-16 versus air superiority fighters

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Phoenix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 155
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2003, 11:25

Unread post15 Nov 2003, 13:18

To Wildcat: I've never heard of any real Phoenix shooting and I didn't know that the Iranians had Phoenixes fro their F-14s. But it is a possibility. As far as the Iranians are concerned... well, how good could their F-14 pilots have been? I mean they didn't have the jets for all that long before the revolution and after the revolution the US didn't like having their embassy personell taken hostage and cut the arms deliveries. But you never know what they might have given them in order to convince them to release the hostages. As for the Gulf, well it does strike me as curious that no Phoenix might have been fired, coz they must've had them (the Iraqi AF wasn't exactly viewed as the joke it is today), but then again, F-14s are normally tasked with carrier defense and it was the Eagle drivers that went over the border to shoot the Iraqi AF out of the air. Any thoughts anyone?

To Normsta: I expect any hit around the nozzle to be disastrous, but I expect a plane to be able to fly with damage to its tail . Guess not when your tail catches fire though. The Russians just have a thing about putting fuel tanks where they shouldn't be and this makes for extra vulnerability, but given the Russian doctrine, which was largely 'surprise, saturation salvo and crush'em with sheer numbers', it might not be all that relevant.
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2810
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post15 Nov 2003, 16:50

Normsta, while taking a missile up the *ss is definitely not a good thing it is infinitely preferable to taking one in the midsection. There are several documented cases of 'conventional' jets (F/A-18, Tornado, Mirage F1, etc) taking one up the pipe in GW1 & 2 and being able to RTB, but the real surprise/tragedy was that an inordinate number of AV-8Bs were lost to missile hits. This was because the AV-8B hot exhaust is in the 'middle' of the fuselage, not on the tail. Notice all the extra chaff/flare dispensers that have sprouted on the Harrier's upper spine in recent (10) years - that is why.
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2810
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post15 Nov 2003, 16:54

The US did fire a few AIM-54s in the Gulf war, but with less than spectacular results (or so I've heard). Remember the AIM-54 design is not one of an A2A dogfight missile but one of a long range interceptor against a relatively slow moving, non-maneuvering target - specifically a Bear Bomber. The IIRAF has fired some too, I would imagine Elp would have more info on that.
Offline

Wildcat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 12:49

Unread post15 Nov 2003, 17:36

Thanks for confirmation, <b>Habu2</b>.

By the way, does anybody have serious information about the Phoenix Russian counterpart, i.e. R-33?
Offline

Phoenix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 155
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2003, 11:25

Unread post16 Nov 2003, 00:43

No hard info, but I heard it's similar in range, it was originally meant to be employed by the MiG-31, but I'm pretty sure that the Flanker family can use it too, especially the later versions and it has a derivative, namely the R-37.

Also, the FCC on the MiG-31 is supposed to be somewhat similar to that on the F-14, just a little bit less performant (last I've heard, it could only engage 4 targets simulatenously, while the F-14 can engage 6).
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post17 Nov 2003, 17:54

Off topic. This relates to your Phoenix answers:

Chart of Iranian Kills since 1976.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml

Note that a lot of Iraqi jets for years didn't have radar detectors with good ability. So a lot of the Phoenix and Sparrow kills in the war with Iran, they never knew what hit them. After some years they learned and started putting a bit more stress in this area. The basic tactic when getting an F-14 spike was to run and live for another day. Later when getting spiked by the USN F-14's, same thing. Run.

Book on the Iran - Iraq war. The authors know way more on this topic than I do.

http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
- ELP -
Offline

Penpen

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2004, 13:58

Unread post28 Apr 2004, 14:07

Ok, so this is old, but I just found this site... bear with me while I beat the dead horse a bit. :p

Normsta3 wrote:Eurofighter 2000 & Rafale (The Pride And Future Of Europe)
Since the Rafale appears to basically be a British derivative of the Eurofighter 2000, the same should probably apply.


I dont know if anyone's mentioned it, but I'm quite sure the Rafale is french.

Normsta3 wrote:Gripen (The Little Fighter That Could)

Long - range combat: I'll admit, I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on the Gripen's long - range AA capabilities. All I know is that Sweden better have an answer to the AMRAAM, 8)


Well, actually Sweden does.

http://www.flygvapennytt.mil.se/photo.p ... =5246&oid=

Lower text "Jaktrobot Rb 99 AMRAAM laddas på Gripen." translates to "Antiaircraft missile Rb 99 AMRAAM is loaded on to Gripen".

I'm not sure if they're imported or built under licence.

Fun Fact: "Gripen" is swedish for "Griffin" (or is that "Griffon" or "Gryphon"?)

/Pen - just landed
Offline

Wildcat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 12:49

Unread post28 Apr 2004, 15:07

Wow, it is really an old thread, but interesting things were said. Penpen, if you are interested in it, try the F-16 vs Rafale thread :wink:
Offline

SwedgeII

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 338
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2004, 13:37

Unread post28 Apr 2004, 16:39

You folks are forgetting one thing, yeah all those SU variants that have super-maneuverability have a problem, in that those maneuvers eat ENERGY!! And get you low and slow real fast!! Size does matter!!! At least up high where the air is thin, that big honking F-15 will actually out turn a 16!!! Also the VG inlets schedule air to the engines much better so they can operate much more efficiently at altitude. 16.s don’t have VG inlets, so it’s a compromise. What would be real interesting would be a “slasher” type fighter. Like a stealthy F-104 with about a 30,000lb thrust motor in it. Come streaking through launch AMRAAM missiles and scoot on out!! No matter how much you turn and burn the “Insert favorite missile here “ such as the Aim-9 will OUT TURN and BURN you! Yeah Jinking might help break a “Lock” but as radars get better and better, even that’s not much help. Now combine a slasher type aircraft with stealth, and maneuverability and you get the F-22!!! Able to streak in launch undetected so it gets the first shot!!! Then accelerate the hell out of there. The problem with the 16 is that it can NOT disengage many aircraft as it has a relatively slow top speed. The ability to disengage allows you to scoot, then rejoin the fight under more favorable conditions. In the 16 you literally have to fight it out. In a tight fight the first missile shoot wins bottom line, you aren’t going to out turn a missile. However you can out run them if you can scoot fast enough! At the minimum it gives you time to pop chaff and flairs as you jink like crazy!! But if you decide to perform a COBRA that’s just asking for somebody to do a GUNS kill on ya!!!
Offline

JanHas

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2004, 11:13

Unread post28 Apr 2004, 16:42

Long range combat is something that is extremly rare. Most recent air combat was mid-range. Dutch F-16 shooting Mig-29 and the Gulf-war for example. The problem is that long-range identification is tricky business. I don't think this will change in the next 10 years. The risk of shooting down an airliner is still not done. And a civilian jet looks the same like an Mig at long range. And potential adversaries also fly western aircraft. You do the math... :arrow:
Offline

SwedgeII

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 338
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2004, 13:37

Unread post28 Apr 2004, 16:53

Only if you have a Crappy radar! The Radars on the F-15 and 16 can tell the difference, with the 15 ones having a far greater range!!! as far as potential western aircraft adversaries. We just send out that special transponder code and it disables all the enemy aircraft!! *L* I saw in on Startrek so it must be true. was also on the new Glatica movie.. *L*
Offline

IDCrewDawg

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 857
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004, 16:54
  • Location: Florida

Unread post28 Apr 2004, 17:14

Swedge II,

You mentioned the 16 doesn't have vairible guide inlets, this is true, however it does have vairible guide vaines, the same ones on the 15 (since they use the same motor). It was my understanding that at high mach speeds the variable ramp was to restrict high speed air from over speeding the engine. The falcon is designed with the inlet the way it is to inhibit air at high mach speeds naturally, it creates a stagnat air (not sure if the term is right) bubble, so that the engine doesn't get forced into an over speed. I am sure bix can help me out on this. High altitude maneuvers, I am sure the big wings on the 15 are going to help, however moving weight is an issue as stated.
Offline

SwedgeII

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 338
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2004, 13:37

Unread post28 Apr 2004, 18:05

the IGV's are mainly there to keep the Engines from Stalling! The Vari-ramps keep the Air Sub-sonic, as the Blades on most engines are optimised for Sub-sonic speeds. On the 16 the FTIT will start to rise as the air compresses due to foward speed ram effect. eventually the 16 will have to slow down to keep the FTIT with in limits. also as FTIT rises thrust decreases.
Offline

IDCrewDawg

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 857
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004, 16:54
  • Location: Florida

Unread post28 Apr 2004, 18:21

SwedgeII wrote:the IGV's are mainly there to keep the Engines from Stalling! The Vari-ramps keep the Air Sub-sonic, as the Blades on most engines are optimised for Sub-sonic speeds. On the 16 the FTIT will start to rise as the air compresses due to foward speed ram effect. eventually the 16 will have to slow down to keep the FTIT with in limits. also as FTIT rises thrust decreases.


Keeping the air subsonic is why the inlet is shaped the way it is on the 16, which creates the subsonic air. So if the engine on the 16 can have an over speed at high mach speeds, then that is sort of counter productive to be able to go supersonic isn't it?
Offline

STBYGAIN

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 188
  • Joined: 13 Jun 2003, 03:46
  • Location: RJSM -- Japan

Unread post28 Apr 2004, 18:22

The DE(E)C will modulate that. That's why you are not supposed to go supersonic below MIL power in SEC.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests