F-16 versus air superiority fighters

IDCrewDawg · by **IDCrewDawg** » 28 Apr 2004, 18:25

I didn't know you could go supersonic below mil power. I knew you could do it at or above mil, at high altitudes. Though below mil power unless your in a dive or something I wasn't aware that it could do this.

F16guy · by **F16guy** » 29 Apr 2004, 16:20

Having flown training combat with F-15's, Mig 29's, F-18's, F-5's, A-4's, A-10's, Tornado's, F-15E's, F-14's, T-33's and AV-8B's I will say they all have their advantages. Some are hard to see, F-5's for example. Some can turn really well, A-10's (bet you didn't think about that jet, don't get in a turning fight with him.) It is easy to try and compare jets in turn performance, radar's, avionics and such but those numbers only tell part of the story. One would hope that after the F-16 hit the sky over 30 years ago that some of the newer jets would be able to match it's capabilities, the fact that it is still the one that all new jets are compared to is a testament to how well it was designed.

The only truly scary jet that I know of is the F-22. I know guys who've fought against it (well tried to fight against it) Su-30's in India and China are worry some but so is any Viper or for that matter any jet with a descent radar missle and radar. For some of the guys who said the F-16 is strictly used by the USAF as a mud mover not designed for A-A combat, stop go back and look at why the F-16 was designed(early on in this thread). And to any one who thinks the Viper can't fight high they are wrong. Variable geometry engine inlets or not. My Viper motor does not have any of the engine restrictions that the F-15 pratt and wimpy's do at high altitude. Besides I've never started a Dog fight and had any jet out climb me and over all Dog fights go down, not up.

SwedgeII · by **SwedgeII** » 04 May 2004, 16:49

If the 16 climbs so good, why did it not ever have any Time to climb records like the 15? I know the 15 doesnt hold those records now, but the 16 never has, never tried and never will. It a great little fighter dont get me wrong, but its no F-15, BTW remember the 16 lost to the 15E in the mud moving contest as well, although now with the high output prats and GE,s the XL would have been a more viable alternative. It was the Coolest looking 16 built, and didnt have a need for all those OVER wing guppy tanks!!

KarimAbdoun · by **KarimAbdoun** » 04 May 2004, 20:22

Su-37 - Just when you thought that the Su-35 couldn't get much better, how about we give it a pair of thrust - vectoring engines

The Su-35 has Thrust Vectoring, the difference between them is more modern Tech in stuff, check "What is the difference between a Su-27, 35 and 37"

SPIKE · by **SPIKE** » 27 Sep 2004, 23:12

Did someone say that Russian Pilots suck? I think that they actually are pretty damn good, look at the things they do at air-shows.That 1999 Su-37 show was in then papers for how long? Pretty long.They owned that whole air-show. I wouldn't call them ill-trained.

Ciao Avios

Cylon · by **Cylon** » 28 Sep 2004, 00:04

Err... yeah, I saw two of them crash... That was pretty....impressive?

Cylon

f16driver · by **f16driver** » 28 Sep 2004, 00:49

Habu makes a great point. The F-16 with good AWACS to fighter coordination could be the most lethal out of the mentioned fighters minus the F-22.

SPIKE · by **SPIKE** » 28 Sep 2004, 05:28

Cylon, yes they did crash, but thanks to their good K-36 ejection seats they survived. But didn't an F-16 pilot also crash a couple of months ago at Idaho Air Show, doing some S manuever? Those guys do kulbits and cobras... Hey sh*t happens when you push the jet to the limit.

Ciao

habu2 · by **habu2** » 28 Sep 2004, 18:02

While there are many factors in what makes a good pilot (vs ones that 'suck'), one important factor is the number of hours a pilot gets to fly. It is my understanding that the average Russian pilot flies fewer hours per year than the average US pilot does per month. It is difficult/near impossible to maintain proficiency when you're not flying - no matter what country/air force you're in.

Cylon · by **Cylon** » 29 Sep 2004, 01:02

WELL lets start with facts: The russian guys are the test pilots that fly the airshows with a jet partially fueled. They cannot accomplish the cobra / etc maneuver until a specific fuel weight. Having talked to the active duty (if you call it that) dudes, they are not permitted to do those maneuvers.

Second, any pilot will tell you that profficiency in your aircraft requires you to actually fly it. AND guess what, sh*t happens when you are just cruising from point A to point B sometimes... That guy at the airshow made a critical mistake in mission planning; he flew the jet out of the recovery envelope. A super-rats-ass-cobra-special-tailslide wouldn't have saved him either...

Cylon

elp · by **elp** » 29 Sep 2004, 14:21

SPIKE wrote:Did someone say that Russian Pilots suck? I think that they actually are pretty damn good, look at the things they do at air-shows. That 1999 Su-37 show was in then papers for how long? Pretty long.They owned that whole air-show. I wouldn't call them ill-trained.

Maybe not for a few demo guys. I would however call the whole Ru AF ill trained. And that is a large problem.

Bode · by **Bode** » 09 Oct 2004, 15:26

And if it fights with an S-37 Berkut (or they allready change it to Su-47?)?
I know it's still a prototype but the presume that it can easily overmatch the F-22 in a dogfight, and they use helmet build in targeting systems for the R-73 since the Mig-29, yet I don't know if its true but I read somewhere that the Su-37 super flanker was able to flight at mach 1 in vertical, so I soupose its a more agile and fast fighter than the Su-37.