F-16 versus F-15

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2003, 14:29
by Pakistaniboi
Hi guys,

I'm saying which one is better F-16 or F-15 but I think the capabilities of F-15 are much better than the F-16. Can you help me figure out which one is better? :roll:

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2003, 14:54
by elp
Well for start up sounds and cool procedure at start up, the F-15 has it all.

The signals and movement between the crew chief and the pilot and then the little jet fuel starter (JFS) ( a turbine in between the two engines starts up )

That is a cool sound, then after that is up to speed, the pilot starts the first engine. A big workload is now placed on the JFS and it starts this wonderful assending turbine sound in sreaming bursts, each burst higher and higher until it gets up to full speed. Then the engine starts spinning, lights, and gets up to speed. Once the first engine gets up to speed, and as that sound peaks out (cool sound number 2 ) Then the JSF make this long desending sound back down to idle ( cool sound number 1 desending while cool sound number 2 assends up to speed.) After a while the pilot does the start up on the second engine and the JFS sreams back up to full speed again and after the second engine is up to speed, the JSF will spool back down to idle ( both the sounds the JSF make are things that belong in the best of movies for dramatic effect ). This is even more cool when it is a couple jets pulling alert and there is a reason for them to start up. There are a whole bunch of other things too like the intake ramps moving to the full down positon. All that combined with the whole event really makes it a bit more dramatic then most jets.

Really cool sounds. Some of the better jet sounds there are. The F-16 just doesn't have quite that impact. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2003, 15:02
by habu2
elp, so what you're saying is that, while the F-15 is starting up #2 and the ground crew is all ooh-aah over the sounds, the single engine F-16 is already at last chance waiting to take off??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

(just some good-natured ribbing...) :wink:

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2003, 16:24
by elp
Yeah sure something like that 8)

Back to the topic, there is already some stuff out there on the internet on these two jets for A2A but a few short thoughts:
  1. F-15.... Fuel to burn: example; running out on an alert, ( burn off 2 or 3 drop tanks and worst case, punch those off and still have a good amount of internal fuel) This fuel economy is also good for positioning/disengaging etc.
  2. BVR both should be almost equal although an F-15 presents a bigger radar target.
  3. WVR- F-16 is harder to see/keep a tally on, not so with the F-15
  4. Never take lightly the ability of the F-15 to turn and burn in WVR. It can do it, just not to the nth degree that the F-16 can. Not always an issue if the F-16 in question is carrying a lot of stuff in friendly BFM.
  5. USAF F-15 A-D community. All they do is air to air training. Thats it. Pilots will tell you that this is a perishable skill and needs to be done often. F-16s have a FULL training schedulel that includes air-to-ground, so they get less practice AND it isn't that often the practice includes BFM with a clean jet. Drop tanks, ECM Pod, LANTIRN or LITENING Pod etc etc are more the norm. Many times the BFM exercise involves the F-16 not just doing air-to-air but the goal is to accomplish their A2G mission. The F-15 is added to the mission planning to provide F-16s training time in how to go against an A2A threat AND press on and do their primary mission. Both sides get something out of the training for sure. So the friendly match ups aren't always what the casual jet enthusiast expects. The USAF F-15 A-D community has seen every trick you can throw at them and are very aware of what they, themselves can't and shouldn't do in BFM. Because that is all they train for, that can make them hugely annoying to the multi-role jet community that they fly against. "We'll yeah... thats all you guys train for... we have a real job... " :D
  6. F-16. Way cheaper to operate and support.

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2003, 18:48
by Guest
Our F-16's from Vermont fly against the F-15's out at Cape Cod, MA all the time. Have seen many a hud tape of their F-15's getting hosed, over and over again.

I do believe in all honesty though that the F-15's have to fight with a few restrictions to make it a fair fight. Their radar can reach out and touch you at greater distances than ours can. But on the other side of the coin, once the F-15 and the F-16 get into the knife fight, the F-16 is a much more nibble fighter.

Also depends of the stick actuator in the cockpit. If the pilot does not know how to fly his aircraft to the full extent to his flight envelope, his will suck in either jet.

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2003, 23:56
by Guest
As a Viper Driver, we spank the sh*t out of those twin tailed fags all the time in the BFM realm since I can get a tally on them way the hell out there because they're so damn big. The only problem is getting to the merge and as it's been said on this already. The light greys are air-air pros since that's all they do although we still give them a run for their money.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2003, 17:54
by elp
As Sam Kennison said in the Rodney Dangerfield movie - Back to School


..... "Good answer". 8)

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2003, 20:38
by marsu
Just out of curiosity; what would be typical restrictions imposed on F-15s to make an F-15 vs F-16 fight fair ?

Mil power only is actually the only one I could come up with ...

marsu

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2003, 03:41
by Guest
maybe the F-15 couldn't use its long range radar to engage the viper
I do believe in all honesty though that the F-15's have to fight with a few restrictions to make it a fair fight. Their radar can reach out and touch you at greater distances than ours can.
guest made that quote and that dose sound reasonable

F-16

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2003, 19:48
by Normsta3
This topic has been a long time coming, and I'm glad it's finally arrived. Now, let's get down to it.

F-15

1. Is faster
2. Has greater range / combat persistence
3. Great radar
4. Can carry a whole lot of AA missiles
5. Built to be an interceptor
6. Large / easy to spot
7. Incredibly large radar - cross section
8. Can turn, but not like the F-16

F-16

1. Smaller and lighter
2. Later versions have excellent range
3. At least decent radar
4. Can carries an equally impressive warload of AA missiles if need be
5. Can turn on a dime
6. Built to be a dogfighter
7. Relatively small RCS
8. Much cheaper, even in the later variants
9. Has great acceleration, but lower max. speed & rate of climb
10.Isn't as good at highter altitudes
11.On average, radar usually isn't as good as F-15

The overall winner: the F-16. F-16s can turn tighter, are harder to spot, and can also reach out and touch an enemy with their AMRAAMs practically just as easily as the Eagle. Also, in topics such as this, pilot skill is usually mentioned, but aren't we talking about the capabilities of the aircraft, not their pilots? I mean, I know pilots are important and all, but shouldn't we take the stance of equally - skilled pilots going up against one another so that we can just look at the planes' abiliites themselves? Any thoughts?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2003, 20:06
by DeepSpace
I agree with Normsta3.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2003, 20:26
by elp
Like I said. In the future, when more jets do high-off-boresight heaters. The turning to the nth degree, won't mean much. IMO the pilots issue does matter. As mentioned many times before, these are exercises. No one wants to go up against an F-16 in real life. If they do, they are crazy :wink: There is a real good chance it can be your last day. Of course a lot of this is mutual support. Mutual support is definately at the top of the list of things that will keep you alive.

You might want to consider the ability of the 18 "v2" F-15s up in Alaska, to be added you your exercise. They have quite the radar outfit. I am sure a lot of its ability isn't public consumption.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2003, 21:10
by habu2
The APG-63(v)2 gives the Eagle unparalleled ability to "reach out and touch someone" in the BVR arena. A smart Eagle driver with a v2 need never get close enough to a Viper (or anyone/anything else) to worry about what happens after the merge. A peek at the APG-63(v)2:

http://www.raytheon.com/products/apg63_v2/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/d ... 992202.htm

and extracted from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... design.htm is this:

In December 2000 Boeing Company delivered to the US Air Force the final three of 18 F-15C aircraft it refitted with Raytheon's APG-63(v)2 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, providing the Air Force the world's first operational fighter jets with the advanced-technology radar system. The AESA radar has an exceptionally agile beam, and provides nearly instantaneous track updates throughout the field of vision. Other benefits of the radar include enhanced multi-target tracking capability and elimination of the need for a hydraulic system. Addition of AESA technology substantially increases pilot situational awareness, while enhancing reliability and maintainability. The AESA radar allows the pilot to detect, track and destroy multiple enemy aircraft at significantly longer ranges. The AN/APG-63(V)2 is compatible with current F-15C weapon loads, features upgraded identification-friend-or-foe and environmental control systems, and enables pilots to take full advantage of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Missile capabilities. It can simultaneously guide multiple missiles to several targets widely spaced in azimuth, elevation, or range.

The AN/APG-63(V)2 is a major radar upgrade for the US Air Force F-15C aircraft. Retaining controls and displays nearly identical to those of its predecessor, the AN/APG-63(V)1, the new system adds an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar to proven AN/APG-63(V)1 radar components. In an AESA system, the traditional mechanically scanning radar dish is replaced by a stationary panel covered with an array of hundreds of small transmitter-receiver modules. Unlike a radar dish, these modules have more combined power and can perform different detection, tracking, communication and jamming functions in multiple directions simultaneously. An AESA offers greater precision to detect, track and eliminate multiple threats more quickly and effectively than traditional radar. Because the AESA eliminates the hydraulic and electrical systems associated with mechanically operated radars, its reliability and maintainability are dramatically improved.

Question

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2003, 23:26
by Normsta3
Question, does F-15 really enjoy such an advantage in radar? Last time I checked, the latest Block F-16s, like the 52+ or 60s, have an AESA as well, don't they? Can anyone confirm?

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2003, 23:57
by habu2
One of the primary design factors in the frontal area of a jet fighter is the size of it's radar antenna. Compare the size (diameter) of the radome of an F-15 and an F-16, and even an Su-27 and Su-30.

Yes, AESA is planned for F-16 radars but I don't know if it will be exported, which means Blk 52+ and 60 may not have AESA.

Japan developed its own radar for the F-2 (FS-X) and IIRC it is AESA.

True, but . . . . . . .

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2003, 20:33
by Normsta3
True, we don't KNOW if the Block 52+ or 60s will get it, but come, let's move on logical guesses. Unless they use indigenious radars, I'd say that the AESA is a good bet. And even if they don't, USAF F-16s will most surely have them in the future, right? As for the AESA itself, just HOW much of an advantage does a F-15 with AESA have on a F-16 with AESA, if any?

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2003, 21:30
by pucara70
Hi pals:
First of all, both aircraft were born for different tasks, the Eagle is an interceptor, the Falcon is a truly multirole fighter, more manouverable, with great speed, high climbing rate, turns into a coin, and has a lot of posibilities for A2A missiles, besides, it is smaller, easy to mantain, smaller radar echo, and cheaper

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2003, 01:42
by habu2
habu2 said
Yes, AESA is planned for F-16 radars but I don't know if it will be exported, which means Blk 52+ and 60 may not have AESA.


Well according to a press release posted on this very site, Block 60 will get the AN/APG-80 with AESA: http://www.f-16.net/modules.php?op=modl ... =0&thold=0

I guess that answers that question... :oops:

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2003, 05:56
by ysslah
Japanese Radar for F-2 caused many problems during its test in the progress of the development. Therefore, I would not want to rely on those on radars

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2003, 19:53
by Guest
Why do you think they test them if not to find out what's wrong with them?

Off-topic didn't the MiG-31 have an electronically scanned phased array too?

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2003, 19:57
by habu2
Based on photos I have seen not only MiG-31 but also B-1B and B-2A also have planar arrays, which implies ESA.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2003, 20:13
by habu2
ysslah, I would not want to rely on the developmental versions either. I am quite confident the final fielded versions have these problems worked out. Remember, the US manufacturers have been building radars for many decades. This was a fairly ambitious undertaking for Mitsubishi Electric, especially when development of the FS-X radar started well over ten years ago.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2003, 16:52
by Commando
This is quite confusing, considering that an F-16 Block 60 with AMRAAM should be able to take out an F-15A/Bs.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2003, 17:01
by habu2
And an F-15C/D MSIP with AMRAAM and APG-63(v)2 should be able to take out an F-16A/B... aren't you comparing apples to oranges?

Ok Then

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2003, 23:14
by Normsta3
Well gentlemen, then doesn't that imply that they're equal in long - range AA combat? If so, then we should look a WVR combat, in which we all KNOW which plane (not pilot, but plane) is better. Falcon all the way.

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2004, 04:33
by TC
Ok, this thread has been inactive for awhile. Granted, we'll probably never see the scenario where a Viper will have to go against an Eagle in "the REAL thing" unless a certain Viper-equipped, Middle Eastern nation that I might mention, starts something with an allied country. All in all though, most likely NOT going to happen. But, back to the topic. Both aircraft are great in their own right. The Viper can pretty much out-turn any aircraft in the world (except maybe now the 22 and the 35.) The Viper also employs a wide variety of ordinance, and can perform basically any fighter and/or attack mission. The Eagle can dogfight with the best of them (anybody remember Gulf War I?) The F-15 has never been beaten in a dogfight (but neither has the 16) and has a record of NEARLY 110-0. The Eagle can out-accelerate and out-climb any jet of its era, and anything new that the Russians come out with is STILL technologically inferior to the Eagle. The radar really gives the Eagle a wanted unfair advantage, as it will blow away most anything before it is seen. When an air to air engagement is ensuing, the Eagles get first dibs. Anyone else who gets a kill, usually either is in the right place at the right time, or is picking up the slack after the Eagles do an initial sweep. Pound for pound the radar and armament give the F-15 an advantage over anything in the sky. Regardless though, as Chuck Yeager once said, "It's not the machine, it's the MAN!!" Either aircraft will get you the results you want. However, if all we want to do is air to air, put me in an Eagle any day of the week.

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2004, 05:11
by awetsock
It really is comparing apples and oranges...last December (2002) we flew DACT against the Saudi F-15's with our mixture of Block 30 big and small mouths. Needless to say we had some pretty green LT's eating some F-15. I agree with TC..."It's not the machine, it's the MAN!!"

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2004, 06:26
by elp
Wouldn't want to try and keep a tally on the little F-16 in a turning fight. Then again I don't qualify for that job anyway. :D . Put JR in a P Suit and an F-15 and he would show up at the fight at 70,000 feet, going fast, not burning much fuel and already have AMRAAM shots off cause of the speed and height. :twisted:

The test pilots here tell me that flying the F-15E with the big engines ( not the small engine ones ) and no CFTs are a lot of fun.

Being able to out-turn everything

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2004, 16:47
by Wildcat
TC wrote:
The Viper can pretty much out-turn any aircraft in the world (except maybe now the 22 and the 35.)

Well, what about the Typhoon and the Rafale then? :wink: ( remember the Rafale F1 is now in full service aboard the Charles De Gaulle a/c carrier)

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2004, 22:28
by viper032386
What about the Gripen? I thought that was equivalent to the F-16?

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2004, 22:35
by TC
Viper vs. Typhoon or Rafale...Um...yeah. No Contest! Viper wins!

Typhoon beats them all

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2004, 10:10
by Wildcat
Well, IMO Rafale and F-16 are pretty equal (except that Rafale flies better at low speeds, like Mirage 2000), but I really wonder if a F-16 can beat a Typhoon (in the case of equal pilots in both aircraft, let's be serious!), mmm?

Anyway, I don't succeed in realy liking the Typhoon, don't know why... :?

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2004, 21:50
by elp
F-16 community has cooler maintenance types plus the Los Gringos avionics mod. Pretty hard to get around that in a fight. :o :twisted: Although there are some Eagle maintenance pukes I wouldn't take a swing at.

Also re: EF2000... I mean really.... tell me... what kinda music are you going to get if you put a bunch of Typhoon pilots together...? :D That speaks volumes about the F-16 community and org skills. :idea:

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2004, 23:48
by Jukkaimaru
IIRC, the Eurofighter and Rafale are indeed about even with the F-16. They should be-they're the planes their respective countries are making so they don't have to buy American F-16s! The JAS-39 Gripen was, IIRC, just under the Falcon in a few categories, though it climbs better (it's a point defense fighter, so that's no surprise).

One thing that ought to push the Falcon back up a few notches is the JHMCS sight. Now not only can the Falcon turn into a shooting position, it won't even have to turn as far to reach that position. :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2004, 06:43
by TC
Of course, horsing around I was on the last response, now I will be serious. As I said before, when you get down to brass tacks, it's not the machine, it's the man. However, without stepping on any of my foreign allies toes, I will say that American and Israeli pilots are the best trained pilots in the world. Israel, for their non-stop, real world combat experience, and Americans, for our very realistic combat exercises (Red Flag, USAF Weapons School, Top Gun, Cope Thunder, and Combat Archer, to name a few.) I think with that type of training, it would be EXTREMELY hard to go in against a Viper driver in a fight, and come out a winner.

P.S. Really, virtually all of the NATO trained pilots are excellent!

Bahhh honte à toi!

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2004, 10:27
by Wildcat
Jukkaimaru wrote:One thing that ought to push the Falcon back up a few notches is the JHMCS sight.

Well, it won't be so much an advantage over potential enemies, since Russian-made planes have had helmet sights for years and the Rafale and the Typhoon are about to get these kinds of helmet, just like the F-16 (TopSight helmet for Rafale).

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2004, 10:54
by F16VIPER
pucara70 wrote:Hi pals:
First of all, both aircraft were born for different tasks, the Eagle is an interceptor, the Falcon is a truly multirole fighter, more manouverable, with great speed, high climbing rate, turns into a coin, and has a lot of posibilities for A2A missiles, besides, it is smaller, easy to mantain, smaller radar echo, and cheaper


Sir:
The Yf-16 was designed by the fighter mafia as an air-to air fighter aircraft. Everything was designed to make it far superior to anything in the sky. The USAF did not want the plane because it did not fit within the parameters they stupidly believed a fighter airacraft should fit in. The Yf-16 was a threat to its baby, the F-15. So they loaded it with electronic equipment, reinforced its structure to sustain 9g and allowed it to carry nuclear weapons and turned it into a "multirole" fighter. Even after overloading it with more than 2000 kg of extra weight, the F-16 retains superior air to air performance, truly a testimony of the remarkable design.

F-15 was made ever more complex than it needed to be by the stupid push to have it reach mach 2.5 therefore needing complex ramp intakes. (yes, I know about the need to intercept the Mig-25)

I could go on for hours and hours.

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2004, 15:50
by elp
The older helmet found with older MiG-29s / R-73s while awesome in its day, looks real real old when you compare it to the JHMCS. JHMCS has other things in it besides just allowing you to do a high off boresight heater shot. Lots more situational awareness info in it, and the ability to do someday? or currently? ( can't find any public consumption info on this ) has the gear in it to be used at a later date with upgrades?.... to assist in providing visual cues for other non-air-to-air threats/targets. They weren't going to chunk all of this fancy helmet stuff onto the pilots head just to do high off bore sight heater shots and have a little limited HUD info display. JHMCS is pretty awesome. One public consumption article I read on the Alaska F-15s is that the pilot feedback on this new gizmo is real positive.

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2004, 15:54
by elp
F-15 was made ever more complex than it needed to be by the stupid push to have it reach mach 2.5 therefore needing complex ramp intakes.


Hey those ramp intakes are cool ! Besides their important function, they go into the max down position at startup and provide additional effect to the whole F-15 startup experience ( sound and visuals ) :D

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2004, 21:19
by elp
OK... F-16 guys.... you got to do some creative writing to get a gig like this.... :D

Cope India '04

GWALIOR AIR FORCE STATION, India (AFPN) -- As an Indian air force M-2000 Mirage waits to taxi to the runway, a U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle takes off. Both American and Indian air forces are participating in Cope India 04, a bilateral dissimilar air combat exercise. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Keith Brown)

Story here:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007001

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2004, 17:47
by Wildcat
Mmm, nice occasion for a "Wildcat stupid question" :D :
KarimAbdoun wrote:
I'm an F-16 kind of guy, but when it comes to a dogfight, I'd rather be in an F-15C Eagle, not an F-16C Falcon, still, the F-16 is the most manuverable aircraft in the world and could make a mess out of an F-15 if it is put to the edge.

So why would you prefer using an Eagle in dogfight?
IMO, the only clear advantage the Eagle has over the Viper in dogfight is fuel. The Viper is more agile and easier to pilot (and sexier, but it's only my own opinion! :wink: ).

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2004, 20:25
by habu2
The following is a post on another board (ARC) about what makes the F-15 so 'special'. I thought it was really well written and informative, from a guy who sounds like he has 'been there done that':

Like anything else there is no simple answer, so this could be rather long. The first reason is that the pilots work at it so damn hard. It starts at the FTU. An F-18 Top Gun graduate, flying an exchange tour in the Eagle, said he learned more about air to air at the F-15 FTU, then he did at Top Gun. The F-15 FTU has traditionally been the hardest to get through; in my class we started with 6 and ended with 4, at a time when the other FTU's were washing vitually nobody out. At one point they were having a hard time getting UPT students to select the F-15C, because they were so worried about making it through the course. The FTU attitude, by the way, was "fine, if they're that afraid, we don't want them." Once you get to an operational unit, that workload doesn't decrease. There was an IP upgrade debrief recently here at Langley that started at 2000 hours (8:00 P.M. in human time), and went till 0600 (6:00 A.M.) the next morning. Even then it wasn't finished; they just took a break to eat and grab some sleep. Oh by the way, that was just the debrief; it doesn't include the brief prep time which usually starts the day before, the brief (an hour straight of Evelyn Wood speed talking), and the actual flight. Contrast that to some air forces I've seen where the attitude is "what time is the 0900 brief?" Once everybody meanders into the brief, the highest ranking officer is automatically the flight lead with no respect to abilities, and then the debrief consists of singing Kumbaya about how well everything just went. The bottom line to all that, is that getting better at air to air requires commitment and brutal honesty; there were times as a Captain leading a four ship I told a Lt Colonel, in no uncertain terms, to sit down and shut the f**k up in my brief/debrief. There are certain cultures that don't allow for these factors, and as a result consistently do badly. My experience is that Western air forces that I've flown with (mostly NATO members) have been uniformly competetent, because they have the technical background and dedication required.

A second factor is specialization. The F-15A/C does nothing but air to air; although, this will change sooner or later (sooner actually). This allows for an incredible amount of thought about the most basic of details. The simple placement of a CAP can be, and has been, debated for hours/days. The tactics manual for the F-15A/C is the size of a large phone book, and a pilot is expected to be familiar with it all. At this point it is the only fighter left in the world doing nothing but air to air.

Third are the avionics. The F-15C has traditionally had the USAF's best avionics; it was the only aircraft in Desert Storm cleared to fire BVR without AWACS authorization. Because of those avionics it generally gets the first shot or positional advantage in the intercept. It has always gotten the newest toys (AIM-120, AIM-9X, JHMCS, AESA radar) first. You're mistaken in some of your assumptions about avionics. The F-14A/B radar was dog crap for fighter vs fighter combat. It was, no doubt, great for over water against bombers (interceptor mission), but till the F-14D it was mediocre for the fighter mission.

Fourth, is the airframe. Again using the F-14 as a comparison, the F-14A was an underpowered G-limited piece of crap; there was no doubt in my mind when I was in maneuvering fight whether the KittyKat was an A model or a B/D model; there was a significant difference in performance. The F-14A is the only jet I've gone pure on at 12.000 feet and gunned. If I had tried that on an F-15/16/18 I would have had my lunch handed to me. The public conception of the F-15's maneuverability was generated early on when it was only a 7.33G aircraft. With the OWS, the F-15 was a 9G jet, and once two 9G aircraft face each other the difference in the fight will be determined most often by pilot skill (see points one and two above) and sustained maneuverability. Sustained maneuverability, though, will take an eternity (in air combat terms) to make a difference though, so pilot skill is the more important of the two factors.

Fifth is the supporting cast. The F-15, and every other USAF fighter goes to war supported by AWACS, Rivet Joint, Compass Call, tankers, etc... All of these assets have practiced together at Flag sorties, and in the last decade in semi-combat conditions in Northern and Southern watch.

Regards,
Murph


F-16 vs F-15

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2004, 17:07
by Wildcat
Very interesting article, thanks!
However, it will not change my mind: I would still pick a Viper rather than an Eagle for dogfight. I still think that the Viper is better suited to it (at least because its FCS makes it easier to pilot).
There is only one mistake in the article: there are still fighters in the world that are used only for air-to-air. Examples: French and Taiwanese Mirage 2000C and 2000-5, Tornado F.3 (but it is about to change) and MiG-31s (but the latter can't be a dogfighter, no doubt...).

F-15 Vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2004, 21:00
by SwedgeII
A few things that were missed....

The F-15 can fly with one engine out!!! the ability to get your butt home so you can fight the next day! Why do you think F-16's are called Lawn darts??

A big F-15 plus!! Variable geometry Air intakes!!! When the F-16's start losing power due to intake restrictions the F-15 is hitting its stride!!!

wing AREA!!!! above 35,000 feet that big honking F-15 wing starts working good, with less drag, it can actually OUT turn an F-16 at higher altitudes.

In a Gun fight a 16 has 4 shots, maybe 5 if your lucky, A 15 has 11!!

an intangible one is survivability, 16's just aren’t as robust as the F-15, ever see that picture of that F-15 that made it home with one wing gone!! From the wing root out? I’ve seen 16's crash when the old F-100's would hick-up and go from pri to sec. you don’t see to many Shot up 16's actually make it back to base.

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2004, 21:02
by SwedgeII
The Tornado is not much better then the F-4!!!!

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2004, 22:09
by Phoenix
I think what KarimAbdoun is trying to say is that their missions specification is similar.
The MiG-31 was intended to shoot down low-flying strike a/c and cruise missiles, while the Tornado was meant to intercept Soviet bombers and strike aircraft over the North Sea.

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 01:45
by lefty
Only a few F-15c's will have the aesa upgrade radar. Most F-15 C's are upgrading to the apg63v1 which is still quite an impressive radar, it just isn't Aesa. Aesa improves reliability and allows the pilot to use the radar for multiple functions at once. If a radar is Aesa, doesn't automatically give it higher ranges. Currently no US F-16's have the Aesa radar, and I don't think any are planned to. It is being offered on the F-16 blk60. I believe UAE was the 1st country to order the blk60 with its Aesa.

The F-15's radar will always have longer range b/c of its greater size. In other words its radar has many more rcvr/xmtr elements than an F-16's. The F-16's much lower RCS would somewhat counter act this. But in the air supiority role, sorry folks it's all F15. Its speed, altitude, range, massive missile loadout, and powerful radar are still amongst the best in the world.

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2004, 13:34
by SwedgeII
Oh yeah another F-15 advantage, Conformal weapons carriage. = less drag and less mass on the wings. try taking a corner with two 50 lb buckets strapped to your arms and you will see what I mean..

Cape Cop

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2004, 04:00
by Ghostrider3k
Pretty sure we can smoke the Green Mountain boys in a heartbeat...That's why we are the Magnificent Bastards from Mass lol

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2004, 06:25
by sparrow187
SwedgeII wrote:Oh yeah another F-15 advantage, Conformal weapons carriage. = less drag and less mass on the wings. try taking a corner with two 50 lb buckets strapped to your arms and you will see what I mean..

First off they are CFT's Conformal fuel Tanks, the happen to have Bru's in them or Lau-106 a/a 's. If you are so into the jet learn about it. The f-16 also has cft's in the developement stage I believe blk 50's right now. Radar packages: F-16 has a shorter range than the 15 ; it is better at lower altitudesand more manuverable as well at those altitudes. The 15 will outrun the 16. Both planes were designed for two different roles and have adapted over the years. Newer planes, enemy radar capabilities, foreign intel, environment, weather, range, ordinance requirements, all these play a factor in what plane will be use for the mission. Why do you think there are so many different blocks and models of these air craft. Quit regurgitating the words of some cocky jet jocky and look at the facts and stats. By the way the lawn dart is not a joy to do maintenance on, it is the biggest pain in the butt to deal with, the eagle is no picknic either. Yes I do know what I am talking about. I deal with these jets on a daily basis, up close and personal. By the way CFT's tend to affect the weight of the plane they are on and thus ladies and gents as we all know affect performance. If you think I am wrong, do some research, provide me with the info that says I am wrong. Each plane does it's job well. But don't expect daddy to do mommys job better.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2004, 15:52
by habu2
reminder to self - get up on other side of bed tomorrow...

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2004, 09:22
by sparrow187
habu2 wrote:reminder to self - get up on other side of bed tomorrow...


Wow, I really need to cut back on the caffeine that late into a 12 hr shift. Either that or kick the pointy heads out of the shop and have them compare planes somewhere else. I am sorry if I came across rather harsh. Take the pinciples and the info of my last message, but please forgive the curtness and obvious irrateability.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2004, 17:56
by habu2
forgiven. :mrgreen: glad you're feeling better!

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2004, 08:18
by sparrow187
Amazing what can happen to your state of mind after a 4 day weekend! So nice to get away!!!!!! No planes, no sonic booms to wake you up or scare the crap out of you at the most inopportune time. Peace and quiet!!!!

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2004, 05:38
by Bret
True, the F-15s Radar will take out some before they even know what hit them. Take the Oregon ANG dual Mig kill from one F-15 for example. But the way I see it, you need an F-15Eto fullfill the multi-role capabilities of a Viper and you need a WSO to sit in back. The F-16 does it all for only $30 million. Look at it this way: you can buy a Kalishnikov (AK-47) for $100 and kill the hell out of an enemy, or you an buy some super expensive rifle that jams up with a bit of dirt or moisture for $1,000. I'll take the $1,000, buy 10 AKs, then me and 9 of my buddies will go up against the one guy with the fancy gun. It's a no-brainer. That is why the F-16 is the premier fighter in the world and has been for over 20 years. Bigger and more expensive does not always equal better.

F-16 versus the F-15

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2004, 02:27
by Rock88088
I'm surprised this question really needs asked! With that little radar antenna the F-16 can't reach out very far. The F-15 has range, weapons load, powerful radar, buku jamming, and a great RWR system. It has 2 engines, (compare loss rate of the F-16 to the F-15) the vacuume cleaner on the F-16 sets inches off the ground.

F-15 is what the F-16 pilot wants to fly.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2005, 21:30
by WILZ
Guys... I am a John Boyd fan so you probably know what I am gonna say about the Eagle... The BVR stuff is all great but the can see farther but has a smaller FOV vertically. If you get Vipers in the right stack, you can sneak past them everytime... If you dont believe me on this... just ask some guys down iin sunny Florida... We've Clubbed a many of seals down there...

Sun Tzu my friend...
"Cause confusion and strike quick... pull the knife out from behind and he's then yours... to hell with the Missiles... Hose the SOB!"
Quote... John Boyd...

The Viper is what I love... Not the the Eagle... And given the choice... Id rather not fly in circles in the Air all day when Vipers are Kickin a$$ in the Mud and In the Air. THE VIPER IS TRULY A WORK HORSE!!!

Viper

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2005, 23:23
by WILZ
How can it be better like you said if all it can do is fly CAP all day and nothing else... You saw how valuable that was in OIF... Who did the work? I think we know the answer to that...The Viper is also certainly capable of Air Superiority... I bet you cant tell the IAF dudes that the Viper isnt better... They kick peoples a$$ day in and out in it... and it is proven... (Given they do have the Python 2)... the Viper is still their fighter of choice... Not to mention ours... We continue to find new ways to exploit the jet... For Gods sake its a Wild Weasle now... Who would have guessed? The only think they could do with the Eagle is use it as 2 seater strike AC. Come on... Is it that Good??? Thats all they can get out of that thing??? Yes... It is...

We fly against Eagle drivers quite often and believe you me... they dont want us to pull the knife out...

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2005, 23:36
by WILZ
Anonymous wrote:As a Viper Driver, we spank the sh*t out of those twin tailed fags all the time in the BFM realm since I can get a tally on them way the hell out there because they're so damn big. The only problem is getting to the merge and as it's been said on this already. The light greys are air-air pros since that's all they do although we still give them a run for their money.


Just another voice... we know who is better... You guys need to read some John Boyd info... The Viper was built as lightweight nimble a$$ kicking machine... especially in BFM. Then the AF Fucked it all up jacking with it because they loved the fat and once heavy Eagle. The Eagle is an over rated POS that cost a lot of moula... Before John Boyd got a hold of it, it weighed so much... its a wonder it could fly... he hated the thing and no wonder. Every prediction that he has made about the future of Air Power has come to past and the Eagle was not his AC of choice along with other high ups... And wouldn't be if he were still giving 4 Stars sh*t in the Pentagon

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2005, 03:11
by hansundfranz
And he wanted the F-16 totally without radar to safe some more weight.

it sure would kick a$$ in a BVR fight without a radar.

OK this is a F-16 fansite but sometimes it gets a litty silly.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2005, 06:42
by Pumpkin
hansundfranz wrote:OK this is a F-16 fansite but sometimes it gets a litty silly.


negative hansundfranz,

this is a F-16 fan site, but the Vipers enthusiasts are looking for impartial views. It is a nice piece of war machine performed as it was intended, and has evolved since. It is definitely not THE super platform.

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2005, 10:25
by parrothead
Hansundfranz, it's probably a good idea to have a radar in the jet, but with today's datalink technology, having an AWACS around probably makes it nearly redundant. If you can tell where you are by GPS and the AWACS knows where it is the same way, then the AWACS can datalink you his radar data and the software can compensate for the different positions. Now you have a virtual radar that doesn't disclose your position. Just let the software feed position data to the AMRAAMs and watch the enemy jets start fallin'...
Another possibility for the future is space based radar. Give a pilot the same data in the same manner as described for the AWACS above and now he has a very long range radar system that would be VERY difficult to shoot down!
Like I said before, it's probably a good idea to keep a radar on the jet, but if the datalink technology could be made reliable enough, losing the onboard radar wouldn't be that bad an idea as a way to save weight and space for more avionics!

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2005, 21:37
by hansundfranz
Pumpkin
but the Vipers enthusiasts are looking for impartial views

Some do some don´t.

Parrothead; it would be interesting how good or bad all that datalink/sensor fusion stuff works in war against a sophisticated nation.

My guess that heavy jamming and the chances of passive detection (if you increase output power of your datalink to counter the jamming) will make the usage of all that very difficult,

Well such a war is not very likely and sensor fusion is for sure helpful against 2nd or 3rd world countries,

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 08:34
by parrothead
hansundfranz, I agree it would be very interesting indeed! I don't think that passive detection would be that big of a concern. I'm thinking of the AWACS or satellite broadcasting its radar data over a secure data link and all the fighter would have to do is compare its position with the position contained in the data it's receiving. Basically, the fighter in this scenario is a completely silent entity, only passively receiving the data and transmitting none of its own. Any radar emitting the kind of wattage put out by an AWACS or a hypothetical SBR will show up like a beacon anyway, so I don't think the datalink would do anything to make it easier to see. If you really want to have some fun and create an even harder system to defeat, why not uplink the datalink to a satellite, bounce it off a couple of other satellites using a different frequency for each hop, then downlink it to the fighters straight from the last satellite. That way, you can hide the datalink signal inside a whole bunch of other noise.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 08:55
by hansundfranz
What I wanted to say is that jamming is actually easier then tranmitting properly besides the jamming attempts.

If you want a realistic chance to win a war against teh USA you either have to have similar capabilities when it comes to sensor fusion or you have to jam the litte crap out of everything,
If you train accordingly (with your assets fighting autonomus) and the other side planned to rely on their data links whicha re suddenly not working as advertised it will ebcome really interesting.

Lets hope we´ll never find out, Such a war would not be a limited affair.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 08:59
by parrothead
I agree completely! I'm not one to put all my eggs in one basket which is why I still think it's a really good idea to put a radar in the jet! I was really playing devil's advocate and wondering out loud. I certainly hope we never find out, too!!!

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 15:30
by CheckSix
Well look at Kosovo:
The sophsticated NATO hit nothing but fixed targets, really nothing that affected the ground forces really or their will to resist. At the beginning they started with 350 ACs, at the end they deployed 1000AC in the region.

War ended by negotiations....
Now just imagine Serbia was equipped not with 70s equipment, but with some of the 90s (not only light wepons).
This really shows the capabilities of NATO, and that is not very much...

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 16:50
by parrothead
CheckSix, you seem to have forgotten about the ROE there. Nobody was allowed to fly below 20K feet. Also, we had an extremely risk averse administration in power at the time here in the US. Let in the Apaches and Warthogs and let the Viper get down a bit lower with JSTARS support and we'll see what mobile targets get hit!!! Little risk leads to little reward.

OK, so the war ended with negotiations, so what??? We tried to do everything through air power due to political will to do it on the ground didn't exist! When was the last time air power alone won a war? I can't think of one. I love military jets, but the fact of the matter is that in the end, rifles and bayonets are what take ground and hold it. Trying to say that this scenario really shows the capabilities of NATO is like saying that a drive to the local grocery store in a pickup truck really shows Michael Schumacher's driving abilities!!! I think this post shows how much you really understand the situation, and that is not very much...

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 18:18
by Dammerung
Hans, Boyd did not want the F-16 to have no radar, he wanted a small one in it. And at the distances Pilots turn on their radars it's for the best.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 21:43
by Pumpkin
hansundfranz wrote:Pumpkin
but the Vipers enthusiasts are looking for impartial views

Some do some don´t.


hansundfranz, for the record, there're some 2000+ members here. And I'm afraid this is an opened forum. Some might have made comments base on mere passions. Why be too bothered?

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 22:36
by lamoey
This thread is so long I can't be bothered to read it all, but I found ParrotHead's comment about space based radar interesting. I'm sure Hansundfranz will correct me if I'm wrong :oops: , but I will through out my theories :?

:idea: The range of a space based radar would be so long that the accuracy to use it in anything but BVR would be limited. Why not use the GPS signal as the radar. With half a dozen or more satellites over head you will have as many signals to work with. You measure the signal bouncing of targets in your vicinity. As you know the location of the satellite, your self and a very accurate time sync of the GPS signal it should be possible to determine the location of multiple targets with some fancy (nasty) algorithms. I would imagine that the higher altitude the better it would work, as the signal would not be compromised by reflections from the ground :idea:

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2005, 00:58
by hansundfranz
One big problem is emitter power of your satelite based radar.
You only have rather small sonar panels to provide the necessary energy.

Even when you want to use your sattelites not as radars bit only as relays for your datalink/ sensor fusion network it becomes doubtful.

Low emitting power and extreme distance to the recievers make jamming very easy.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2005, 07:35
by parrothead
Interesting idea there lamoey! I don't know enough to tell how good it would work, but it might be worth looking into!

hansundfranz, we could easily remedy the power situation - nuclear batteries! It could be done secretly and kept that way due to "National Security"! Also, satellites are used regularly to relay data such as TV programs and internet connections. My parents live too far out in the boondocks to get DSL or cable, but they still wanted high speed internet. Guess what? They get their internet through Dish Network just like they get their TV!

As for the low emitting power and whatnot, I'm sure there are other ways around jamming. One would be to keep the system tightly under wraps and use the same frequency hopping etc. that the new radars use to hide the fact that they're transmitting a datalink at all. As for the radar bit, I'd think a system using a unique identifier in each transmission to identify and filter returns from other noise might work. I could be wrong here, but it sounds good to me!

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2005, 20:10
by hansundfranz
nuclear batteries! It could be done secretly and kept that way due to "National Security"!

Well, at the moment the USA lacks the necessary lift capacity to bring heavy stuff (e.g Satellites with their own litte reactors) into orbit, and asking the russians or the ESA to do it, seems not the best way.

As for the low emitting power and whatnot, I'm sure there are other ways around jamming. One would be to keep the system tightly under wraps and use the same frequency hopping etc. that the new radars use to hide the fact that they're transmitting a datalink at all.

if we assume that the other side (whoever they are) have the money and the power to challange the USA they for sure also have the necessary skills to analyze such hidden signals. Once you knwo it is there jamming it will be easy.
There are things that can be done to make jamming more difficult, but the necessary effort to Jam will be lower then the effort to make jamming harder.

As for the radar bit, I'd think a system using a unique identifier in each transmission to identify and filter returns from other noise might work. I could be wrong here, but it sounds good to me!

I am sure that this is simply impossible (radar network from Satelites in space). This would mean detection from maybe 500 miles distance (with Low output power as aditional problem)

I think it could maybe once be possible to have passsive systems in Space. Active systems seem very doubtful to me.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2005, 23:39
by Pat1
nuclear batteries! It could be done secretly and kept that way due to "National Security"!

Well, at the moment the USA lacks the necessary lift capacity to bring heavy stuff (e.g Satellites with their own litte reactors) into orbit, and asking the russians or the ESA to do it, seems not the best way.


Project Prometheus which is already underway should take care of this in the next decade or so. It is intended for research but...

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2005, 02:16
by lamoey
Every GPS satellite has a passive heat sensor to detect rocket launches or atomic explotions, but to see a small jet is a different story.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2005, 17:43
by hansundfranz
I wasn´t thinking of heat but of electromagnetic emissions.

Project Prometheus: Nuclear propulsion for long distance space travel, does not have a lot to do with Satelie energy sources.

I´d also guess that such a system would only be used once the spaceship has left the earth atmosphere.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2005, 21:32
by lamoey
There are already space vehicals out there with a nuclear reactor for electrical energy, but not propulsion that I am aware of. If there are any in earth orbit I don't know. I would be surprised if there were none.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2005, 22:45
by hansundfranz
Reactors as energy source have been quite popular in the past. Nowadays they are rarely (if ever) used becuase they learned to live with less energy, build more effective sun collectors, because satelittes come down again eventually and no one wants the enviromental risk, and because every extra pond to shoot up costs a shitload of money. But well it could be used for military applications if the USA gets some heavy lift capacity (which they don´t have at the moment) again.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2005, 00:13
by Hookturn
[OT]

Actually, only Russians back in the sixties-seventies launched satellites with nuclear reactors. Today there are several spacecrafts up there using nuclear powered batteries. Not a hint of a traditional fission reactor there.

[/OT]

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2005, 05:42
by parrothead
Just for clarification, I was speaking of nuclear batteries, not reactors. The US has launched several interplanetary probes with nuclear batteries on normal rockets, not the space shuttle, so heavy lift isn't really required. I just figured that with the nuclear batteries, it would be much easier to boost signal strength if that was required. I wouldn't be too worried about the satellites being detected as they'd be pretty difficult to take down.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2005, 07:46
by cru
My guess that heavy jamming and the chances of passive detection (if you increase output power of your datalink to counter the jamming) will make the usage of all that very difficult,


The Link 16 is almost impossible to jam. It is a directional link, so the only way to jam it would be for the electronic attack plane to position itself between the two planes that are communicating. And don't forget that there are around 128 planes in the net.

Also you need to jam the frequency that the emitter have. But the frequency hops 77 800 times per second!

Passive detection systems like Tamara or Kolchuga are far less effective against datalinks than they are against radars. They need at least 10-20 seconds of continuous emission in the same frequency in order to locate the emitter. Or an MIDS-like datalink would never do this.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2005, 20:33
by hansundfranz
Pretty good information what the link 16 is and does
http://www.tpub.com/content/fc/14103/css/14103_73.htm

IMHO cru is overly optimistic. Sure they did a lot to make jamming harder but its definetly not impossible.

To counter frequency hopping just jam on all used frquencys.

The directional feature can be counered by imperfections of the recieving antenna (similar to side lobe clutter in RADARS) and simply by placing lots of jammers all over the area you want to protect. One of them is bound to be in between the AWACS/Jstars and the fighters,

BTW with quick browsing I found no hint that it is directional as cru suggests.
Of course it is litited to line of sight as any UHF system but that does not mean it emmits and/or recieves signals only from a narrow angle.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2005, 20:59
by parrothead
To counter frequency hopping just jam on all used frquencys.


There are a couple of problems with this. First, you have to know which frequencies are being used, which is most likely a classified bit of information. Assuming your intelligence assets delivered this to you, you'd still have the problem that you probably use some of the same frequencies for different things, so you'd be limiting your own warfighting capabilities.

I'm no expert on the costs of different military systems, but I'd think that jammers don't come cheap. Placing lots of jammers all over the place would require a very large monetary expenditure. Then you have another problem - jammers actively transmit to accomplish thier mission. Because they're sending out so much energy, they're probably easy targets for detection and destruction. The different datalink and radar systems that hop frequencies as fast as they do make themselves less prone to detection due to the fact that they don't transmit on any given frequency for any length of time. Jammers have to cover all the frequencies used by these systems all the time to make sure they jam the right one at any given nano second.

If the system is directional and if you jam one aircraft's link, you've done the equivalent of cutting off one user in a large network. The system will notice it. After the loss of link is noticed and jamming is suspected your jammer will probably be selected for destruction on a very short timetable.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2005, 00:25
by hansundfranz
I´d prefer the Americans spening the 500,000$ harms on my 100,000$ jammers over takeing out my Sams.

I´d prefer the americans targeting ym jammers with their LGBs and JDAMs over targeting my Sams.

If you want to go head to head with the USA you have 2 options.

Have equal or better datalink then they have or make datalink (and GPS) unususable for everybody.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2005, 00:29
by hansundfranz
Frequencys classified:
Link 16 has been used since 10 years in all NATO countries. I am sure everybody really wanting to knows, knows everything there is to know about this system.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2005, 07:12
by cru
Frequencys classified:


There are 51 frequencies between 960-1215MHz (band L) with 3 MHz between the cheanels

To counter frequency hopping just jam on all used frquencys.


You can't if you are not sincronized in the network ( "Net Time Reference")

I'm no expert on the costs of different military systems, but I'd think that jammers don't come cheap


They are very expensive, contrary to the MIDS terminal, wich become affordable (~ 350 000 $/piece for fighter version) because the US teamed with UK, France, Italy, Germany and Spain.

By cutting one link you don't acomplish much. The system will redirect: if the connection between A and B is out, A will transmit through C, D,... to B

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2005, 08:07
by parrothead
I´d prefer the Americans spening the 500,000$ harms on my 100,000$ jammers over takeing out my Sams.


I´d prefer the americans targeting ym jammers with their LGBs and JDAMs over targeting my Sams.


Gladly :D ! I think you'll run out of SAM and radar guided AAA before we run out of HARMs and JDAMs :wink: . We have lots and lots in the inventory and the JDAMs can be dropped by F-117s and B-2s so you won't know anything is wrong until the first bombs hit 8) . Also, we have lots and lots of $$$...

If you want to go head to head with the USA you have 2 options.

Have equal or better datalink then they have or make datalink (and GPS) unususable for everybody.


Not necessarily. Having a datalink is useful, but you also need the proper data, people, and tactics to use that data.

Another thing to consider is that the US is constantly testing all of its equipment against the best ideas to defeat it for better performance in combat. Even with jamming, the JDAMs are still pretty darn reliable.

OK, let's assume that the GPS system completely went down the toilet :o . So what would the US do :? ? Well, we still train to use the old school methods of navigation and bomb delivery :D . As far as I know, BUFF crews still carry sextants for navigation and I wouldn't be surprised if the BONE and Spirit crews do, too. Of course the inertial nav system would have to go down before they'd have to resort to sextants... :wink: Thermal cameras give a pretty good picture of what you want to hit once you get to the target area (remember Desert Storm?) and laser and TV guided munitions and HARMs work just fine without GPS, too :D .

Now let's assume all the datalink frequencies are jammed :o . We managed pretty well before datalinks, so I don't think it would be that big of an issue. First, we select the targets before the mission launches. If there's a change in plans after launch, we can still communicate via radios and those would've been jammed long ago if it was possible :) . Speaking in code is old hat for the military, so we wouldn't really have to worry about someone listening in. In the past campaigns against IRAQ, we even used the people listening in to our advantage - all the EA-6B crews had to do was call out the code word for firing a HARM and the Iraqi air defense dudes would shut off their radars, leaving them blind without even firing a shot :wink: . If all else failed, we'd probably bring the Navajo code talkers back and use them just like we did in WWII :D .

So go ahead and please spend as much as you want to on jammers 'cause we'll either outspend you or fall back on other proven methods :wink: ! WE WILL WIN :twisted: !!!

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2005, 19:32
by hansundfranz
Supposedly, what would be a smart plan for your upcoming nation (think a mix between China and India with some good development done) to beat the USA in a local war?

What equipment would you get? would you try to beat the USa at their own game or try to find a way they are not really prepared to fight against.

Also You guys must honsetly admit that the US forces (at least the Air forcre) train for what they most likely have to do: beat a 3rd world country quickly and cost effective.
There is only limited thought and training on what smart and capable adversaries could do.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2005, 20:29
by parrothead
Supposedly, what would be a smart plan for your upcoming nation (think a mix between China and India with some good development done) to beat the USA in a local war?

What equipment would you get? would you try to beat the USa at their own game or try to find a way they are not really prepared to fight against.

My best advice is not to get into a fight in the first place. Your best bet until recently would have been to buy off UN members and get them to block any action. Thankfully, we've seen that the UN doesn't have as much influence over US defense policy lately as they used to. I say thankfully because we've recently seen in a program called "Oil for food" just how corrupt the UN can be. The best way to avoid an attack now is to expel all terrorists from your territory and cease WMD research and development. I'm not trying to get overly political or anything here, but it seemed to work for Lybia. They handed over their nuclear program to the US and we lifted quite a few sanctions.

Also You guys must honsetly admit that the US forces (at least the Air forcre) train for what they most likely have to do: beat a 3rd world country quickly and cost effective.
There is only limited thought and training on what smart and capable adversaries could do.


Not necessarily. The military, as I understand it, trains for just about every eventuality. We have to train for the worst case scenario because of situations like Taiwan and China. Take this one for example. If China decided to "repatriate" their "renegade province," the US has an agreement to defend Taiwan. The US policy as I understand it is to train for the worst case scenario so that we're ready for it and the small stuff will be that much easier.

It's the same philosophy that justifies the F/A-22 Raptor - we won't settle for just as good as the other guy or even a bit better, we want to have complete and total dominance. There was a thread a while back about four F-16s vs one F/A-22 and the response was basically that it was better for the Vipers to stay on the ground. I've read that the Air Force sent up multiple F-15s against one Raptor and even when the Eagles were given vector to the Raptor, they died before they were able to ascertain its position and they only saw it when it passed close by.

It's good military practice to train for what to do when the brown smelly stuff hits the fan. It's actually good practice in general. It's why pilots, even civilian ones, train for engine out landings and failed systems such as bad instruments in IFR conditions and cockpit lights that go out at night. I carry a set of tools, jumper cables, a first aid kit, water, a decent bit of cash, hard candy, a cell phone, a blanket, and some simple games like a travel chess set and a deck of cards any time I drive out of town, especially when I decide to drive between Las Vegas and San Diego. Why? Because there's not a whole lot of anything but dirt, rocks, rattle snakes, and scorpions in that part of the US. I may have a spare tire, but what happens if I have two flat tires? What if an eighteen wheeler throws a tire or a large rock and damages my car badly enough that I can't continue? What if a surprise storm comes up in the Cajon pass and I get snowed in? It would probably be hours before help arrived, especially with the long distances involved and the low number of police out there. The temperatures in that area regularly top 100 degrees fahrenheit with very low humidity, so even if you're only a few miles away from civilization, you're not likely to fare well without a lot of water. I'd rather be prepared than sorry I wasn't.

My preparations are completely optional and voluntary, but military preparation isn't. Putting bombs on target isn't an option and any pilot who's given a mission is expected to complete it unless the aircraft is mechanically unable to or the crew can't cope with medical issues such as wounds received during that mission. Don't think for a second that we're unprepared for anything...

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2005, 02:04
by hansundfranz
Lets not get into politics (i`d say your views are very typical for an american posting on sucha board but that does not make then valid, but as I said lets better not get into politics) or nationalistic chest beating. Try to be objective. The Superbug is defintly not a capabale A2A machine or designed to counter the worst threat, Same for the F35m a pretty decent tactical bomber with relatively long range but less then ideal capabilities in the A2A arena.

IMHO this http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... c&start=30
Was an interesting thread pointing out things that are wrong with the US Forces. In short they are so sure to be the best and to be miles ahead of any possible oposition so that they could be in for a nasty surprise,

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2005, 05:14
by smorriso
The Superbug is defintly not a capabale A2A machine or designed to counter the worst threat


Please, enlighten us as to why you think that. Any data, engagements, anything that you may have would be very interesting.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2005, 06:08
by parrothead
Lets not get into politics (i`d say your views are very typical for an american posting on sucha board but that does not make then valid, but as I said lets better not get into politics) or nationalistic chest beating. Try to be objective.


It ain't braggin' if you can back it up! I'm not just saying that the US is better because I live in America, I've formed my opinions on knowledge and personal experience. The bit about oil for food being corrupt is being investigated right now and preliminary reports aren't favoring the UN. If these countries were getting kickbacks from Saddam, it severely impeaches their credibility. My dad was a cop for many years and he taught me to check the credibity of the sources. Right now, the UN doesn't have much credibility with me.

About throwing the terrorists out, hey, we got hit pretty bad and we don't suffer such behavior as harboring terrorists gladly. Basically, just be a good neighbor and don't help our enemies. Sorry if I seemed to get too political there, but you were talking about the best way to beat the US. I just said the best way was not to get into a fight in the first place.

The Superbug is defintly not a capabale A2A machine or designed to counter the worst threat


I second smorisso and request some hard information to back up such an inflammitory and severe accusation as that! I know plenty of pilots who would disagree with you there!!!

Same for the F35m a pretty decent tactical bomber with relatively long range but less then ideal capabilities in the A2A arena


Again, I request that you back this up. The first production JSF hasn't even rolled off the production line yet, let alone started testing! That, in my book makes this particular accusation nearly baseless and baseless accusations are the quickest way to lose credibility and respect not only with me, but with many other members of this forum.

IMHO this http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... c&start=30
Was an interesting thread pointing out things that are wrong with the US Forces. In short they are so sure to be the best and to be miles ahead of any possible oposition so that they could be in for a nasty surprise,


I took the time to register on that forum so that I could actually read what you were referring to and make an informed response. After reading it, the sources aren't given in the first post for analisys and verification. I like to check into the actual information when possible. If you read the later posts on this page (I didn't read the rest of the thread), I think you'll see that everyone seems to be saying that either the exercises weren't scored properly (Cope India being scored on a PC and not being held on India's ACM field) or may have been slanted for some reason (US vs Israel, Cope India not using AWACS). This doesn't back up your assertion that the US is lacking.

Something else that you fail to take into account is that exercises are scripted and planned to test certain ideas and to better develop tactics. Without knowing all the details of the planning for these exercises, how can you be sure that they weren't being used to test new ideas?

Now as for the bit about the Kitty Hawk being overflown, did you miss the part about it having just pulled out of a friendly port during peacetime and conducting refueling operations at the time? Did you also miss the part about the battle group's SAM boss being replaced instead of the Kitty Hawk's skipper? I suspect that the details of this incident on the US Navy's side are probably classified, so we can't discuss them even if we knew them. Without both sides of the story, how can we figure out what exactly happened?

I've given examples to back up each of my assertions. You have failed to do this, especially with your attacks on the Super Hornet and the JSF. Please back up your accusations.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2005, 06:11
by parrothead
Oh yeah, about the Super Hornet - 10 AMRAAMs, 2 AIM-9Xs, JHMCS,and the ability to prosecute six targets simultaneously all make for an interesting encounter in air to air.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2005, 07:31
by cru
When assesing US air power,one shoud not limit himself to fighters. That's a lot more--AWACS and Rivet Joint that provide an unrivaled situation awarness and dissiminate it using the mentioned link 16 (with a mere 2 seconds delay) to hundreds of fighters (so they are not obliged to use their radar, and still having a picture about what is 200-300 km ahead),tankers that allow fighters to stay upmore than the ennmy, enough AMRAAMs to fire 2-3 against every target.

If there is a serious threath to US air power, this would be SA 10, SA 12, or the future SA 400 and not the Su 30

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2005, 15:01
by hansundfranz
No comments on politics,

The super hornet is no A2A machine because it
lacks the necessary acceleration and high speed perfornace to win a BVR fight, top speed of mach 1.6, very draggy, heavy weight and underpowered compared to real A2A machine sof the same generation
Many pilots complained about the high speed performance of the F18s and the superbug is even worse the the reguar hornets.

But hey, it was not desigend to be a fighter, its a replacement for the A6 and it has the option to self escort against fighers without any meaningful BVR capabilities.

The JSF: Look at its possible loadouts, its thrust to weight ration the large amount in internal fuel, the pubsilshed specs and its clear that the JSF is not designed to be a fighter, Haveing to explain this makes me wonder if you really know anything or if you are just a fanboy.

The US navy is betting the farm on the chance that the Air force will be able to get bases for teh F22s somewhere in the vicinity and that the Air foce takes care of A2A.
This is not preparing for the worst, it is preparing for gun boat politics afgainst 3rd world countries that can´t put up a fight.

Since you did not get it now, I do not wish for a war where the USA losses (not based on political cosiderations such as loosing votes because to many grunts get killed but really loose cause the costs become to high to justify trying any longer).

Just hypotetically what would be te best course of action of an upcomeing nation that wants to prepare for a possible war against the USA.

Develop the same capablities for sensor fusing and GPS guiding as the USA has
or
make the usage of such systems practically impossible for everybody on the battlefield,

What method would be cheaper?
Would you gain and edge if you can do the same then your enemy can? No

Woud you gain an edge if you deny him something he is used to, and invested lots of training time into using these systems.
Your guys of course train to fight autonomus and nothing else. Yes then this would give you an edge.

Other nations are getting AWACS and other surveillance planes, too. Other nations also develop military capablities in space

No doubt you can beat a run down dictatorship which have soviet equipment form the 70s. But thats not our (relatively hypotetica)l discussion. there won´t be a war against China or India. it would simply be to costly but just for the "what if" discussion. YOu have 5 years to prepare your nation for a war against the USA. What tactics and techonolgy would you imrove and develop to make it as hard as possible for then?

About bragging:
If you claim to be the worlds best heavy weight boxer but all you did was beat up 3rd rate amateur featherweigts, then it is bragging

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2005, 19:22
by parrothead
The super hornet is no A2A machine because it
lacks the necessary acceleration and high speed perfornace to win a BVR fight, top speed of mach 1.6, very draggy, heavy weight and underpowered compared to real A2A machine sof the same generation
Many pilots complained about the high speed performance of the F18s and the superbug is even worse the the reguar hornets.

But hey, it was not desigend to be a fighter, its a replacement for the A6 and it has the option to self escort against fighers without any meaningful BVR capabilities.


The Super Hornet is an all around machine. Also, superior pilots win engagements, not superior planes.

I personally don't believe any public figures on top speed that are quoted for an aircraft as new as this. Even if the top speed is only mach 1.6, I haven't read where many combat jets have had to use their top speed lately.

As for draggy etc, all the pilots I've talked to like it just fine. Of course it's going to be heavy - it's a carrier jet! You're going to need a lot of reinforcing to take that sort of beating. Something else to consider in the Super Hornet's favor is its superior nose pointing ability - I'd like to see an adversary try to control their jet as well at high angles of attack. Even if the Super Hornet's slow, it's still a deadly threat!

The JSF: Look at its possible loadouts, its thrust to weight ration the large amount in internal fuel, the pubsilshed specs and its clear that the JSF is not designed to be a fighter

Possible loadouts are still that - possible and not final. The design is not yet final. That said, it has places to put four AMRAAMs internally, four more externally, and two sidewinders on the wings. That sounds like air to air, at least for me.

Because the design isn't final yet, the thrust to weight ratio isn't set in stone yet, either. Lockheed has put the jet on a diet and has reduced the weight greatly. That said, what part of a vertical landing doesn't require a 1:1 ratio?

A large amount of internal fuel means longer legs to me. I don't know about you, but I think it'll probably burn off some gas before it gets into a fight. Also, more gas inside means less gas outside, which means more weapons outside. Sounds good to me.

By published specs you mean published speculations, right? I say speculations because THE DESIGN ISN'T FINAL YET!!! We still have a complete test program to go through! What makes you think the jet won't improve?

Haveing to explain this makes me wonder if you really know anything or if you are just a fanboy.


Right back at ya :twisted: ! I'd think someone who purports to know everything about these jets would know that an aircraft that's still in development isn't finalized and that nobody can make 100% accurate statements regarding the finished aircraft's capabilities because they haven't been finished yet!

I really don't like personal attacks or insults and "fanboy" sure sounds like an insult. I said that your statements about the JSF were baseless because you didn't back them up with any hard information. So far, the only information you have given is advice to look at the possible loadouts, low thrust to weight, and large internal fuel of an aircraft that hasn't even entered testing in a final form. I never insulted you, instead I spoke my mind about your assertions and asked you to back them up.

The US navy is betting the farm on the chance that the Air force will be able to get bases for teh F22s somewhere in the vicinity and that the Air foce takes care of A2A.
This is not preparing for the worst, it is preparing for gun boat politics afgainst 3rd world countries that can´t put up a fight.


The US Navy understands that you can't fit an entire squadron of AWACS, another squadron of dedicated air to air, another squadron of air to ground, another squadron of tankers, another squadron of dedicated CAS, another squadron of dedicated electronic warfare, maintenance and support (specialized spare parts, etc.) services, weapons and everything else for all those different aircraft and their systems onto one carrier and still have room for a flight deck! Have you ever been on a US aircraft carrier??? I have! GOOD GOD IT'S SMALL IN THERE!!! I've been on the Ranger, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, and the Midway. I've also watched as the Nimitz, Lincoln, Carl Vinson, Ronald Reagan, and many others come and go from downtown San Diego. Those boats are big compared to most others, but for what they do they can never have enough space!

The Super Hornet is a great air to air jet, especially in the right hands - see above. It's also a great air to mud jet and the JHMCS ain't just for air to air. The US Navy is thinking that the Air Force has global reach and if the situation warrants, we still have nuclear ICBMs that can fly at a moment's notice. One or two carrier battle groups are not now nor have they ever been meant to fight and win a conventional war all by themselves. It's the joint forces concept! Even back in WWII, carriers were used to provide air support against other ships and land based forces. They provide the quickly deployable air power that's needed right now.

With all that in mind, think about what you need on a Carrier. You need a jet that will get the job done in air to air, air to mud, electronic warfare, and tanking. The Super Hornet is pretty darn good in air to air and air to mud, it's taking over the job of tanking from the S-3 because it does a better job, and they're developing it for electronic warfare because they think it should do better than the EA-6B in that area.

This isn't "preparing for gun boat politics against 3rd world countries that can't put up a fight, it's playing its part in the grand sceme of global defense of US interests and being a team player.

Since you did not get it now, I do not wish for a war where the USA losses (not based on political cosiderations such as loosing votes because to many grunts get killed but really loose cause the costs become to high to justify trying any longer).


I got it the first time and I'm still saying that it ain't gonna happen, at least not because the military can't handle the situation. If you think about it, the reasons for "losing" a war are pretty simple. Either too many people on your side die for the public's comfort level (same thing goes for the monetary cost of the campaign), or your cities are rubble and the opposing side pulls your leaders out at gunpoint. The former is far more likely than the latter. The only war we've lost for the first reason was Vietnam. We lost Vietnam because the politicians restricted the US forces too much. I'm pretty sure the outcome would've been different if we hadn't halted bombing every time the North Vietnamese wanted peace talks, thus letting them rebuild their defenses. Letting politicians designate what targets could and could not be hit and which ingress and egress routes was also a bad idea there. We have yet to lose one for the second reason and I don't think we ever will.

Just hypotetically what would be te best course of action of an upcomeing nation that wants to prepare for a possible war against the USA.

Develop the same capablities for sensor fusing and GPS guiding as the USA has
or
make the usage of such systems practically impossible for everybody on the battlefield,

What method would be cheaper?
Would you gain and edge if you can do the same then your enemy can?

Woud you gain an edge if you deny him something he is used to, and invested lots of training time into using these systems.
Your guys of course train to fight autonomus and nothing else. Yes then this would give you an edge.


Hypothetically, I'd say you should spend as much as you can on attempting to gain parity. As I've said, denying us these systems would be a minor annoyance, but we still train to fight without them so we'll still be ready for this. I'd also bring back barrage balloons to counter the cruise missiles that will surely be headed your way and invest heavily in shoulder launched or IR guided SAMs that can't be tracked by their radar signatures. Of course, if the SAM isn't shoulder fired, you'd better be able to move it really quick because launching a missile will compromise the launcher's location and make it a high priority target. Of course there are still those pesky B-2s and F-117s to deal with... Don't forget that the reason the Nighthawk was lost over Europe was that they were being told by higher ups to use the same ingress and egress routes and this predictability lead to a guns kill. I don't think we'll make that mistake again!

there won´t be a war against China or India. it would simply be to costly


WWII was too costly! The reason we get into wars is that the other side isn't being reasonable or rational!

Other nations are getting AWACS and other surveillance planes, too. Other nations also develop military capablities in space


I'm pretty sure they're not as capable as ours and we have more experience employing them. Advantage US.

YOu have 5 years to prepare your nation for a war against the USA. What tactics and techonolgy would you imrove and develop to make it as hard as possible for then?


Train as hard as you can for everything! Give your pilots as much flight time as you can afford to buy jet fuel for. Keep your troops in the field as much as possible. People are the difference in combat! History is chocked full of stories where a small group of determined and highly trained indivuals have held back much greater forces. Do a google search on "molon lave" and the story behind this Spartan phrase. Training is the reason a small group of Green Berets, Navy Seals, or Delta Force is so feared and respected.

One last thing I would advise is to get your politicians to set a goal for the military and then stay the hell out of the way!!! History also has many sories of politicians getting in the way of the military and causing a loss where there would have otherwise been victory.

About bragging:
If you claim to be the worlds best heavy weight boxer but all you did was beat up 3rd rate amateur featherweigts, then it is bragging


This wasn't my point. I was saying that we can fight and win without GPS or Link16. I was saying that even if a bomber's electronic nav instruments went out it could still hit its target. You seemed to take this as "nationalistic chest beating" when I meant it as a statement of fact.

Now about Iraq - Iran and Iraq fought for years and years and lost many lives on both sides in that war. Iran had some pretty good hardware such as US Hawk missiles and Tomcats. The US didn't like Iran for obvious reasons, so we helped Iraq. The point here is that we took out Saddam's regime and decimated his army in record time with the lowest loss of life to friendly forces that I can remember in such a campaign. Saddam had been rebuilding his military ever since the '91 cease fire. I wonder what would've happened if someone else had tried this.

About Afghanistan - We helped the side we wanted to win because the other side was harboring a terrorist leader whos group had attacked US civilians on US soil. Victory was accomplished in short order with a minimum of losses.

As far as I can tell, these were perfect engagements in that we lost as few people as possible while completing our stated objectives. A properly conducted war should be like clubbing baby seals - quick, deadly, and a minimum of risk to friendlies. Why didn't we go into Afghanistan with overwhelming force? It's the same reason a sniper uses a rifle from long distance rather than getting into a fist fight.

Never forget that the US doesn't want war. Soldiers hate war more than anyone because they're the ones getting killed. The American people come in a close second because it's our family members and friends who are the soldiers. Politicians come in a close third because they need the peoples' votes to attain and maintain power. But make no mistake, we will fight to win if the need arises.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2005, 15:35
by Spiker
This long living topic will finally be settled on Sunday afternoon. Go Atlanta!

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2005, 07:57
by Amulius
My choices:

At Range: F-15C, definitely

Guns only, low altitude: F-16, definitely

Guns only, high altitude: F-15C

Up Close: F-16

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 20:38
by WAiC
elp wrote:OK... F-16 guys.... you got to do some creative writing to get a gig like this.... :D

Cope India '04

GWALIOR AIR FORCE STATION, India (AFPN) -- As an Indian air force M-2000 Mirage waits to taxi to the runway, a U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle takes off. Both American and Indian air forces are participating in Cope India 04, a bilateral dissimilar air combat exercise. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Keith Brown)

Story here:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007001



How does the Mirage M-2000 compare to F-16 or F-15? Or is it no contest?

Thanks

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 22:17
by WAiC
parrothead wrote:Just for clarification, I was speaking of nuclear batteries, not reactors. The US has launched several interplanetary probes with nuclear batteries on normal rockets, not the space shuttle, so heavy lift isn't really required. I just figured that with the nuclear batteries, it would be much easier to boost signal strength if that was required. I wouldn't be too worried about the satellites being detected as they'd be pretty difficult to take down.


After the paperwork is signed and dotted. Your pal the F-15 can take care of a sattalite quite easily with a little.. um never mind classified but nontheless taking down a sattalite in LEO is very easy. Thats where the GPS sats operate anyways. Geo is a bit more complicated, but can be done in less than a day with proper approval and funding.

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2006, 04:40
by Ayubi
Comparing F-15 against F-16 is like comparing a tank to a submarine. The F-15 was built to be a air superurity fighter, the F-16 is in a different league, it was built for dogfighting. I will choose the F-15 in BVR fights, but i will choose the F-16 for a dogfight.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2006, 07:09
by Thumper3181
"taking down a sattalite in LEO is very easy. Thats where the GPS sats operate anyways."

Sorry but that is wrong. GPS birds are in Polar GEO. This ensures maximum coverage with minimum birds.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2006, 14:09
by pissedpookie
elp wrote:
You might want to consider the ability of the 18 "v2" F-15s up in Alaska, to be added you your exercise. They have quite the radar outfit. I am sure a lot of its ability isn't public consumption.


Funny someone should mention this. I attended an open house at Eielson a few years back and specifically asked the host F-16 pilot how he'd fare against an Elmendorf 15. He unashamedly admitted that he'd probably do very poorly. He'd thought he'd be shot down because of the differences in radar range.

Hope the anecdote helps.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2006, 18:36
by blain2
WAiC wrote:
elp wrote:OK... F-16 guys.... you got to do some creative writing to get a gig like this.... :D

Cope India '04

GWALIOR AIR FORCE STATION, India (AFPN) -- As an Indian air force M-2000 Mirage waits to taxi to the runway, a U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle takes off. Both American and Indian air forces are participating in Cope India 04, a bilateral dissimilar air combat exercise. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Keith Brown)

Story here:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007001



How does the Mirage M-2000 compare to F-16 or F-15? Or is it no contest?

Thanks


Look at the F-16 vs. Mirage 2000 thread.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1872.html

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2006, 14:14
by Danimal
If we're talking about a dogfight here there would be a significant impact on the F-16 if it were loaded down like an F-15. F-15's wouldn't lost much performance by having all it's stations filled. But if we're talking a F-16CJ with maybe AIM-120's on 1 and 9 and AIM-9's on 2 and 8, with maybe a centerline fuel tank, I think the 16 would take it WVR.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2007, 11:29
by Aussie_Falcon_Freak
I think that my question fits in best here, so here goes...

I have a DVD on the F-16 and there is a comment at the start of it that rather confuses me. I hope someone here, can explain it for me..

They make the comment that the F-15 Eagle is "undoubtedly the best dedicated dogfighter around today, but proved too costly as an export aircraft for other countries to afford it."

Does this statement purely mean that the F-16 is a far more versatile multi-role aircraft than the Eagle is?

This cannot be based on performance and manouverability alone can it? Even someone with an untrained eye such as myself can see that the 16 moves a lot sharper than a 15 appears to.. Perhaps this statement then goes back to what one of the earlier posters mentioned about 15s training only for air to air and nothing else?

I just found it an odd thing to say on a DVD about an F-16...

Thanks for your help...

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2007, 01:25
by hansundfranz
Replace "dogfighter" with "air superiority fighter" and you´ll get what the comment should really mean. Damm journalists, sometimes they just don´t know better and sometimes they simplyfy so much that it ends up beeing misinformation

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2007, 16:42
by FDiron
I've heard that the F-15 is a better dogfighter than the F-16 due to its wing area, ability to pull more than 9gs, and thrust to weight ratio.

So, here are some questions. Can the F-15 outturn the F-16? Can the F-15 out-accelerate the F-16? Which plane has a better climb rate? Which plane can stay in afterburner longer?

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2007, 05:15
by Raptor_One
The F-15C only outperforms the F-16 at high altitudes. At medium and low altitudes, the F-16 is more maneuverable and accelerates faster or just as fast.

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2007, 15:32
by Purplehaze
The F-15C only outperforms the F-16 at high altitudes. At medium and low altitudes, the F-16 is more maneuverable and accelerates faster or just as fast.


This is why these two compliment each other so well. Also the 15 has better eyes to reach out and touch someone.....LOL

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 22:08
by Velvet
Block 60's are AESA, block 50-52+'s being saold now are APG-68v9 which is a very capable but still mechanically scanned array.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 11:22
by strikeeagle
The F-15 was NOT designed as in interceptor. it is a AIR SUPERORITY FIGHTER.....AKA DOGFIGHTING

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2011, 11:29
by skyy
BVR, no doubt that the Eagle is superior. WVR, I'd still bet more money on the Eagle driver. As mentioned, they fly A/A way more, including BFM. Plus, the F-15C can fly at high alpha/low airspeeds (tighter turn radius) way more effectively, while being nearly about the same at higher-speed rate fights.

Really, the hardest part about fighting a falcon is just staying tally. Even that's not too hard to do. :)

F-15Es are a different beast entirely...I'd say the average falcon driver can outfight the average mud hen crew 90% of the time. It's not really fair, though...F-15Es always fly with conformals/pods/racks/tanks, so the T/W is just sad, nevermind the drag.

A clean block 50+, though unrealistic, would be tough to fight rate-wise. Once it gets slow, it's alpha is still severely limited. You gotta love having two gigantic vertical tails...

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 07:01
by swingsbothways
Hey guys, I'm currently an F-15C pilot with about 444 hours in the Eagle and I just got my dream assignment, to crosstrain and fly lawndarts. I'm so excited to go to high key, the Eagle is fun and all, but RTB'ing to High Tac Initial everyday is just getting boring. As far as the Eagle/Lawndart question...I think the Eagle was designed more for people who do well at pilot training and the jack of all trades lawndart is best suited for your average Joe.

Take break turns for example: In the Eagle, you have to bring your A game to dial up a monster break turn...correct airspeed for alt, correct initial stick travel, correct buffet assesment, smooth but aggressive finish. Too little, and you break like a T-38, too much and you over gumby. In the lawndart though, you just hit corner, tell HAL you want to turn, and when you wake up, you find you've pulled 9Gs. This probably helps explain why I'm being transferred to F-16s, my best Eagle break turn ever was 7.2Gs!

And I can't wait to drop something off my airplane on purpose! I know Dos Gringos say you can teach a monkey to throw poop and pickle, but up until this point in my flying career, everytime something fell off my jet, I had to write a dropped object report.

Another thing I'm looking forward to is CAPS! In the Eagle, we have to memorize the whole checklist so there is no need for CAPS/Boldface. In the F-16, they boil it down so I've only got to remember a couple critical actions: Wing Off= Eject, Engine Quit = Eject. Busted DOR = Eject. It's gonna be awesome.

Can't wait for my January TX. Pretty sure I'll be teaching BFM through TI...and really...how hard is SA? You put the thing on the thing and pickle...right?

Swing

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 07:36
by geogen
If only USAF was procuring FBW F-15E+ today (essentially an F-15SA + APG-82 + PAWS II+ MLD(?) + Elta jammer(?)) as part of a stopgap recap strat... Remove the CFT, configure with centerline tank and arm with 4x latest/best semi-conformal BVR rounds + 4x AIM-9x if flying your described 1v1 DACT exercise. I would wager your USAF block 50 software would alert you to make a quick retreat upon assessing the disadvantage ;) With all respect and thanks for your service. In my humble opinion.