F-16 vs. F-22

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

TenguNoHi

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 920
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2004, 04:24

Unread post22 Apr 2005, 22:24

Entropy, your information is quite incorrect. First off, UAVs will be far cheaper than fighters. UAVs are basically large missles. And what do you think cost more? A missile or a plane? UAVs require less material to manufacture because of their small size, they will not require avionics or life support systems or certain extents of safety systems that prevent the airframe from pulling more G's than a pilot is normally capable of.

Secondly, the UAVs proposed right now will be piloted by humans. I think the proposal is that mobile trailors or command centers, or air units similar to an AWACs, will house the pilots who will control the UAV on something not so far from a PC. The only thing is, being a fighter pilot loses its romance when you get up to get a back of potato chips and a coke. (And knowing AF people, someone WILL try and sneak potato chips and a can of coke onto the plane).

The advantage to UAVs is they eliminate the need for a manned aircraft in which the human becomes the limiting factor of the air craft. UAVs will be able to pull 20-30Gs as oppose to manned A/C which are automatically cut off at 9Gs. UAVs will also be smaller, more expendible, and have reduced RCS. Someone said a few years back that the AF would completely replace its fleet with UAVs in 20 years or so. While I think that estimate is a lil too generous to the UAVs, I dont expect to see pilots around in another 50 years.

-Aaron
Offline

Pumpkin

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2003, 21:12

Unread post22 Apr 2005, 22:54

sorry guys, do you mean UAV or UCAV? I believe there is a different between the two and the latter is more than a large missle.

cheers,
Last edited by Pumpkin on 23 Apr 2005, 09:56, edited 1 time in total.
Desmond
Offline

ACSheva

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 442
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48

Unread post23 Apr 2005, 01:00

It eliminates the loss of pilots


You have a point there. You would also not have to pay the fighter pilot the crazy $$$. Im sure the remote control pilots would make a bit less than the actual gun-ho jocks. Pilots in the cokpit will be becoming a limiting factor to a jet in the future. Speaking of UAVs CAVs, Boeing is the leading company in that field.

ACSheva
Offline

danhutmacher

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2005, 13:46

Unread post23 Apr 2005, 07:19

The idea that the F-22s radar can't be detected by a rws is a myth. Any time you transmit it can be detected and used against you.

Another myth is that the F22s stealth will make it invisble to radar. Stealth DOES NOT make you invisble just harder to detect.

As for uavs replaceing manned fighters that reminds me when back in the 50s they said that sams would replace manned fighters. Everyone knows that that didn't happen.

the history of air combat is full of peacetime ideas that were shot full of holes in the first weeks of the war.

I just wish people would stop being blinded by the F-22 because it's the "newest" fighter. Like any other fighter it has strengths and weakness. A smart pilot will use his strentgh and minimize his weakness.

i agree with Erik that radars will be negated but not by stealth but by ECM.
I think that is enough for now. Check Six.
Offline

TenguNoHi

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 920
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2004, 04:24

Unread post23 Apr 2005, 08:16

There are a couple big reasons that UAVs are going to take over the skies. 1: UAVs are much more inexpensive than manned fighters.
2: It eliminates the loss of pilots.

But we can still keep piloting skill a factor. We simply make them controlled by remote. That way, not only is it still inexpensive, and we still don't have to lose pilots, but we still keep pilots invoved and in the loop.

Now I'm not saying I want to see fighters become obsolete, because I love fighters. I'm just saying that we don't have to leave UAVs in the control of supercomputers.


I'm not sure how I misread some of this earlier but you can ignore a large ammount of my above post :p I read can't or something... .bleh, it doesnt matter, anyways sorry for jumpin on it :p

danhutmacher, I'm not directly connected with the F-22 project, naturally, but I know a few people that are, and I am sure that the F-22 avoids RWS detection. The manner is highly classified and it is very hush hush naturally. I'm hoping TC chimes in cause I think he'd know weather or not this is confirmable. Natrually it makes sense everytime you transmit you should be able to be detected but then again, the world WAS flat for 1500 years too. Woops, messed that one up didn't we?

-Aaron
Offline

Entropy

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 00:36
  • Location: El Paso

Unread post24 Apr 2005, 01:44

I'm not sure how I misread some of this earlier but you can ignore a large ammount of my above post


Okay. You confused me for a second there. Whew, I thought I was a jacka$$ for a minute because I had wrong information. :oops:

Thanks for the correction TenguNoHi.
Leatherneck, Jarhead, Devil Dog...yeah, those are my names.
Offline

flanker_hater

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2004, 08:58

Unread post25 Apr 2005, 03:06

I heard that the F-22 had a cloaking device making it visible throughout the entire EM spectrum (IR, UV, Radar, Visible light, etc) and that is also had a DEW to zap almost anything out of the sky. Has anyone else heard this?
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3280
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post25 Apr 2005, 22:53

Right behind the photon torpedos :lmao: !
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

Entropy

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 00:36
  • Location: El Paso

Unread post25 Apr 2005, 23:27

Right behind the photon torpedos


While we're at it, let's just add Marvin the Martian class ray guns on the undercarriage.

ha ha
Leatherneck, Jarhead, Devil Dog...yeah, those are my names.
Offline

nikos

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 03 May 2005, 14:34
  • Location: Crete GREECE

Unread post03 May 2005, 21:44

Lets start a new topic then! Vipers against ... Cylon Raiders! uups! thats another show! :crazypilot:

Anyway I think that F-22 would beat the F-16 even in a WVR combat - with no sesors at all for both aircraft -. Vectored thust + superior thrust to weight + more EPI + lower wing load. Thats the REAL F-22 advandages. Su - 37 has the same.
Nikos J. FARSARIS
Iraklio, Crete, GR
Offline

Entropy

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 00:36
  • Location: El Paso

Unread post03 May 2005, 23:48

Yeah, the 22 would win. Just out of manuverability. It's really an unfair advantage. Plus, they have run tests against with 22s against 16s and 15s, and the latter rarely won.
Leatherneck, Jarhead, Devil Dog...yeah, those are my names.
Offline

VPRGUY

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 853
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2005, 18:03

Unread post04 May 2005, 00:23

No, no, no, NO!!! The marvin the martian ray guns don't go on the undercarriage, they go on the hardpoints under the wings!!!! Why else do you think they PUT hardpoints on???? Fuel tanks? Bombs??? Hardly. Come on guys, get your facts straight. ;-)
Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Offline

Entropy

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 00:36
  • Location: El Paso

Unread post04 May 2005, 00:30

Or we could just stick with missiles and guns, y'know.:lol:
Sorry.

I just didn't think they would fit in the bays.
Leatherneck, Jarhead, Devil Dog...yeah, those are my names.
Offline

LebaneseAce

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 06 May 2005, 18:55
  • Location: Eskilstuna, Sweden.

Unread post08 May 2005, 17:00

The Raptor isn't impossible... Christ

I watched Al-Manar (before it was banned) and they had an interview with a Russian general. The Russians said that they had developed a missile that can take down any aircraft that is in service today. That means it can take down the F-117. And if it can down a Nighthawk, it can down a F-22.
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post08 May 2005, 17:30

I agree with LebaneseAce, the Raptor isn't impossible to beat. If a Viper were to some how get into WVR fight with one, and was armed with JHMCS and AIM-9X AAMs, all the Viper would need to do is to get lock and the Raptor is dead. After all, even though the Raptor is a highly maneuverable aircraft, there is very, VERY little chance it can outmaneuver a missile that has over a 99% chance of hitting a target.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest