F-16 versus F-15

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

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 3998
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post16 Feb 2004, 22:35

Viper vs. Typhoon or Rafale...Um...yeah. No Contest! Viper wins!
Offline

Wildcat

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post17 Feb 2004, 10:10

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... :?
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post17 Feb 2004, 21:50

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:
- ELP -
Offline

Jukkaimaru

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2004, 20:42

Unread post17 Feb 2004, 23:48

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:
One engine. One gun. More missions than you can count.
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 3998
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post18 Feb 2004, 06:43

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!
Offline

Wildcat

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post18 Feb 2004, 10:27

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).
Offline

F16VIPER

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 01:51

Unread post18 Feb 2004, 10:54

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.
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post18 Feb 2004, 15:50

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.
- ELP -
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post18 Feb 2004, 15:54

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
- ELP -
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post18 Feb 2004, 21:19

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
Attachments
temp1.jpg
- ELP -
Offline

Wildcat

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post25 Feb 2004, 17:47

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: ).
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post26 Feb 2004, 20:25

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

Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

Wildcat

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post27 Feb 2004, 17:07

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...).
Offline

SwedgeII

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post27 Feb 2004, 21:00

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.
Offline

SwedgeII

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post27 Feb 2004, 21:02

The Tornado is not much better then the F-4!!!!
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests