F-16 vs. F-22

Wender · by **Wender** » 04 Mar 2005, 04:39

This kid in one of my aviation classes this morning brought in a video of an F-22 handing an F-16 it's a$$ on a mock dog fight. It was so cool to see how much of an advantage the vectored thrusters are. Anyone here know what video I'm talking about? How about a link?
It was on Fox News somewhere, the reporter went up on a two-seat Viper and everything. Lucky reporter.

CheckSix · by **CheckSix** » 04 Mar 2005, 09:30

I've seen this vid, it is ridiculous. Both planes fly side by side. F-22 pulls up and postitions behind the F-16.
Conclusion: Raptor is impossible to ctach.

Wender · by **Wender** » 04 Mar 2005, 16:15

That is true. The Raptor is a sick aircraft, but does the fact that the Viper is a two seater make it less maneuverable?

agilefalcon16 · by **agilefalcon16** » 04 Mar 2005, 21:23

Yeah, I believe the Viper being a two seater does play a factor in its agility.

But still, it ain't fair to compare the older Viper with the newer Raptor. The only way it would be fair to compare the two, would be to update the Viper with a Thrust-vectoring nozzle, and to give it a bigger engine that can generate more thrust, so that the Viper would at least be up to par with the Raptor.

FutureFlyer06 · by **FutureFlyer06** » 06 Mar 2005, 20:52

Wender, I know what you're talking about. I saw that video quite a while back on www.f-22raptor.com. I tried looking for the exact link right now but I couldn't find it. There's a page on Fox about this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124002,00.html) but I did not see a video link there either. Yeah it was pretty interesting though. I'm sure that the F-22 definately has huge advantages over the F-16, especially with thrust vectoring. However, in the flight that that reporter was on, I highly doubt that the F-16 was performing at it's top potential due to the fact that the pilot had a passenger who probably could not handle so many g's. The Raptor, however, could turn and burn as it so chose. Regardless of whether or not they had a passenger, however, the F-22 would most likely still win.

Roscoe · by **Roscoe** » 06 Mar 2005, 22:40

two-seater makes no significant difference in agility....just takes 1500 lbs of gas away

Entropy · by **Entropy** » 20 Apr 2005, 20:11

Plus, since the Raptor has stealth ability, it wouldn't be too hard to eliminate an oblivious target if the F-22 pilot can sneek up on him. Especially if the Raptor had distance on it's side. But also, out of sheer manuverability, the F-16 pilot, sadly, wouldn't stand a whole lot of a chance.
:cry:

And I love the Viper so much. lol

Lisafer · by **Lisafer** » 22 Apr 2005, 01:19

modification man think outside the square. do what i do, even up the odds. granted mybe the only way of doing that is major stuctural reshaping of the Raptor but who cares about that, as long as the Viper wins right?

Entropy · by **Entropy** » 22 Apr 2005, 01:25

Don't get me wrong, I love both aircraft, but I like the Falcon more. So I guess you're right, but if I had the choice, I don't want either to be shot down. But since we have to choose, I want the 16 to win, but sadly, I do think the 22 would win.

Lisafer · by **Lisafer** » 22 Apr 2005, 01:35

sad but true...NO IM NOT ADMITTING IT lol im just wondering hahaha. anyway......

danhutmacher · by **danhutmacher** » 22 Apr 2005, 03:51

The winner of any fight will depend on the scenario and the ability and smarts of the pilots involved.
The Raptors big advantage is to stay high and fast and shoot everything BVR. But if the Falcon pilot is smart he will stay low and use the F-22s radar against him.
Both planes have there advantages and disadvantages.
But in the end I would much rather have a block 52 F-16 with and HTS pad then the F-22 any day of the year.

TenguNoHi · by **TenguNoHi** » 22 Apr 2005, 04:18

Dahut? What do you meen use the F-22's radar against him? The F-22's radar is immune to RWSs and has a highly capable ground scanning mode... I dont think thatd be a viable tactic for the Viper driver.

John Browning once said the gun was the equalizer of all men. Boy, was he right. The gun took a lot of skill out of individual combat. What used to take 3-5 years to train a warrior in fencing arts or use of a long bow, no only took 10 months. Stealth is going to produce a similar effect, imo, on the fighter world. The tragedy is, that right now, as we stand and speak, fighter pilots are a dieing breed. And the ones that are flying now are probably going to be the last ones required to have high ammounts of skill. By the time I get there im expecting my job to intail little skill at all. It saddens me but I think thats just how it is. And in only a few years after that, UAV's will whipe us all out. Then the skill meter is 0, because the pilot isnt even involved anymore.

Skill is only involved the more even the playing field is. As the technology exploits the weakness of the current technology the skill gets sapped. Skill is also limited, thats why we develope technology. Only when 2 entities technologies are on par with each other does skill become a factor again. It all goes back to the difference between strategy and tactics.

Maybe you dont like it but I think people need to start facing the music and realising that the waves of robotic drones swarming the skies are gonna burn off a lot of the romanticism shrouding the fighter pilot persona.

The reason I say all this is because the F-22 contains some monsterous technological leaps. Many of those it stole right from the Viper. Look at the canopy! Lets be honest, air frame to air frame the Raptor schools the Viper. When the Viper says "2+2=4" the Raptor says "BS! 2+2=5" and then there aint nothing the viper can do about it. Ugh, I have a feeling im starting a fireball with this rant, but anyways, ill sum up soon. The F-16 is an amazing air frame. But if we could develope pilot skills supperior enough to deduce the need for an F-22, then we wouldnt waste the money on the better air frame. Skill is very limited in capability. The Swiss figured that out over 500 years ago when they realised that a 20 ft. lance took all the fun out of fighting with 3 foot swords. "Hmmmm, if they cant get within 20 feet of me, I dont have to worry about them getting within 3 Ft of me!" In fact, the Japanese, Greeks, Macedonians and Helens all realised the same thing too. Kinda like how the British realised that the long bow took all the fun out of battlefield combat. The British Longbowmen were prolly the greatest early example of BVR combat to day. Theyd sit behind hills and volley off mass arrows that could travel hundreds and hundreds of yards and decimate armies before the got to WVR.

Anyways, im done. I could say a lot more but I have a habbit of putting people to sleep with non sense :p

-Aaron

EriktheF16462 · by **EriktheF16462** » 22 Apr 2005, 12:44

I feel stealth in the A/A will bring the fighter pilot skills back. No longer can they engage BVR because they can't find each other. That brings us back to the good old #1 sensor the eyeballs. Which means in an equal world, which will come along in the next 15 years or so, there will be a lot of WVR fighting. It will negate the radar for sensor if the radar can't find the targets. Someone will find a way to defeat the F22 radar, they always do. UAVs will have there place but if the sensor suites are defeated once again it goes back to the mushy wet, bio sensor in the seat to get the job done.

TenguNoHi · by **TenguNoHi** » 22 Apr 2005, 17:38

I agree with ya Erik, but we have to wait for technology to equalize first. That will never happen untill everyone has stealth, not just one or two countries...

BTW, im in fear of stingy remarks from my last post. So I just want to clarify im not trying to downplay the skills of pilots, im just trying to say that there is a reason defense technology evolves so rapidly.

-Aaron

Entropy · by **Entropy** » 22 Apr 2005, 20:14

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.