F-16E vs. F-15 Golden Eagle

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

slapshot!

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 162
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 00:26

Unread post26 Aug 2015, 18:06

basher54321 wrote:
slapshot! wrote:The USAF F15Es are getting the APG-82, EPAWS, and already have an IRST in the form of the Sniper XR pod.


Wasn't aware Sniper had that capability - thought that's why Legion and OpenPod were being developed.


There were even trials of fitting the Sniper XR to F15C's. And I'm not sure how effective of an IRST it was.
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post27 Aug 2015, 04:34

slapshot! wrote:There were even trials of fitting the Sniper XR to F15C's.


How??
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post27 Aug 2015, 05:49

slapshot! wrote:
basher54321 wrote:
slapshot! wrote:The USAF F15Es are getting the APG-82, EPAWS, and already have an IRST in the form of the Sniper XR pod.


Wasn't aware Sniper had that capability - thought that's why Legion and OpenPod were being developed.


There were even trials of fitting the Sniper XR to F15C's. And I'm not sure how effective of an IRST it was.



Hopefully, said F-15E+ upgrade jets as noted, will soon be integrating the next-gen 'Sniper SE' pod as an evolution in capability beyond the spoken 3rd gen XR variant of the early 2000s. (The early 2000's F-35 EOTS apparently being based on the XR).

The previous test involving the integration of a Sniper pod on the F-15C's centerline point though, sounded affordable and practical... but apparently USAF decided otherwise and didn't feel at the time that it was a cost-worthy or affordable investment in added capability.

But with respect to USAF F-15E's employing an IRST in form of an XR pod mode... I was more so suggesting a dedicated large-aperture IRST pod capability which would of course be a far superior sensor. Hence my particular comment that upgraded USAF F-16s, when equipped with said IRST pods, might have an advantage in BVR vs F-15.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1710
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 Aug 2015, 06:11

to be honest, i dont see how equip either F-16 or F-15 with IRST will significantly swing the out come of BVR engagement between them

neither of fighter are stealthy, both can be detected from very far by the other by radar, yes i do aware that IRST allow you to detect and track enemy without being detected by their RWR, but it not like you can provide firing solutions again enemy's fighter by your RWR anyways
and IRST also significantly affected by weather
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post30 Aug 2015, 02:54

eloise wrote:to be honest, i dont see how equip either F-16 or F-15 with IRST will significantly swing the out come of BVR engagement between them

neither of fighter are stealthy, both can be detected from very far by the other by radar, yes i do aware that IRST allow you to detect and track enemy without being detected by their RWR, but it not like you can provide firing solutions again enemy's fighter by your RWR anyways
and IRST also significantly affected by weather


Thanks for opportunity to respond on this topic, El...

Firstly, a dedicated large aperture IRST can actually provide surprisingly enhanced situational awareness and at greater ranges than one thinks - against certain targets - in certain conditions.

Note also my premise above was based on an upgraded F-16 w IRST pod vs an upgraded F-15C with NO IRST pod. A slight difference.

Now take into consideration that your modern RWR can indeed help cue your dedicated IRST, which can indeed create the firing solution at max distance to your modern BVR rounds, passively, accordingly. An advantage is an advantage. Take it.

Lastly, after you (equipped with your IRST) take your first shot(s)... note you can also begin to maneuver at greater off-bore angles (to evade the red force's counter-shot) and still be able to keep (and relay said data to other tactical platforms (manned/unmanned in your group) the battle situation on your display, accordingly.

Call it a day -- advantage in this particular DACT exercise to your upgraded F-16 + IRST + modern BVR rounds, vs your marginally upgraded F-15 with no dedicated IRST, etc.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1710
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post30 Aug 2015, 04:16

geogen wrote:
Thanks for opportunity to respond on this topic, El...

Firstly, a dedicated large aperture IRST can actually provide surprisingly enhanced situational awareness and at greater ranges than one thinks - against certain targets - in certain conditions.

i know IRST can significantly increase SA in certain conditions, such as again VLO target, i just dont see how IRST will really increase F-16 pilot's SA again some target like the F-15 (massive RCS)
.
geogen wrote:Now take into consideration that your modern RWR can indeed help cue your dedicated IRST, which can indeed create the firing solution at max distance to your modern BVR rounds, passively, accordingly. An advantage is an advantage. Take it.

i know RWR can be used to cue IRST, however IR system cant provide range or velocity information on it's own without the help from LRF or Radar ( sending a few pulse for range and velocity measurement)
Range of LFR are relatively short ( around 20-30 km)

geogen wrote:Lastly, after you (equipped with your IRST) take your first shot(s)... note you can also begin to maneuver at greater off-bore angles (to evade the red force's counter-shot) and still be able to keep (and relay said data to other tactical platforms (manned/unmanned in your group) the battle situation on your display, accordingly.
.

how is that any difference from using a radar though ?
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1710
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post30 Aug 2015, 04:41

personally i think the main advantage of IRST over radar is the advantage to positive ID target
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post30 Aug 2015, 06:09

Modern, upgraded IRST systems can/will likely be able to passively range targets, especially with at least 2 aircraft flying in a group.

Any time you can passively range and target/cue an adversary, etc, it will arguably give you a tactical advantage.

You'll also know when your tgt is going into afterburner, potentially preparing to go transonic/supersonic, and preparing to launch...or trying to feint (deceive you) while under heavy ECM environment, etc. Nothing to sneeze at.

Furthermore, as long as the F-15 in this hypothetical DACT is forced to maintain active radar tracking (w/ no passive IRST capacity), the likely even bigger tgt it could provide to the other guy's mid flight pulse update, let alone to an incoming active MRAAM round. That is, the stronger the opponent's RCS and geolocation data to your computer processor, the more accurate and better performing your tracking and tgt effectiveness = i.e., improved pK per Med range active shot.

A smaller RCS tgt, operating in largely passive mode, will make it harder for opponent forces side, via, reduced battle situational awareness, to maintain order of battle decision making. A disadvantage...

IRST could likely have a greater range of field tracking too, which could equate to improved off-bore maneuvering capacity (superior defensive evasion) after the shot is taken. Just my views.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post30 Aug 2015, 06:19

checksixx wrote:
slapshot! wrote:There were even trials of fitting the Sniper XR to F15C's.


How??


Centerline station. Was apparently an economical in-house 'trial' modification done at a squadron level - on a tight budget. An improved computer and improved display under a basic MLU might even enable enhanced integration of such a SNIPER SE pod config in future. Who knows.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1710
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post30 Aug 2015, 11:51

geogen wrote:Modern, upgraded IRST systems can/will likely be able to passively range targets, especially with at least 2 aircraft flying in a group.

Modern IRST are indeed have higher resolution, work in wider band, have better range .. etc but since they still work in same principle as the old system ( received IR radiation) , they still have to share some similar disadvantage compared to activate system like the radar.
anyway, i guess you talking about ranging using triangulation ?, I think that possible too, if at least 2 aircraft flying in a certain distance from the others, but since neither F-15 or F-16 have stealth directional datalinks like F-35, F-22, they show up on enemy's RWR the moment they turn on their datalink for triangulation, that sort of defeat the purpose of staying passive doesn't it?


geogen wrote:You'll also know when your tgt is going into afterburner, potentially preparing to go transonic/supersonic, and preparing to launch..
.
radar can do the same thing since it let you know enemy's exact speed and heading,


geogen wrote:or trying to feint (deceive you) while under heavy ECM environment, etc. Nothing to sneeze at.

fair point

geogen wrote: Furthermore, as long as the F-15 in this hypothetical DACT is forced to maintain active radar tracking (w/ no passive IRST capacity), the likely even bigger tgt it could provide to the other guy's mid flight pulse update, let alone to an incoming active MRAAM round. That is, the stronger the opponent's RCS and geolocation data to your computer processor, the more accurate and better performing your tracking and tgt effectiveness = i.e., improved pK per Med range active shot.

still dont see how that different from an F-15 if it was trying to maintain IR tracking

geogen wrote:IRST could likely have a greater range of field tracking too, which could equate to improved off-bore maneuvering capacity (superior defensive evasion) after the shot is taken. Just my views.

Radar are likely to be superior in term of tracking speed and FoV at max range compare to optic, IR system
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post04 Sep 2015, 05:33

Look, a late model F-15E+ equipped with your advanced AESA -- plus a dedicated large aperture IRST -- would be superior in gaining extended-range situational awareness, especially vs LO objects, or if in high ECM environment, vs a radar-equipped F-15 only.

It would simply enable more tactical flexibility along with practical capabilities.

That is the point.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post19 Sep 2015, 18:34

eloise wrote:
geogen wrote:
Thanks for opportunity to respond on this topic, El...

Firstly, a dedicated large aperture IRST can actually provide surprisingly enhanced situational awareness and at greater ranges than one thinks - against certain targets - in certain conditions.

i know IRST can significantly increase SA in certain conditions, such as again VLO target, i just dont see how IRST will really increase F-16 pilot's SA again some target like the F-15 (massive RCS)
.
geogen wrote:Now take into consideration that your modern RWR can indeed help cue your dedicated IRST, which can indeed create the firing solution at max distance to your modern BVR rounds, passively, accordingly. An advantage is an advantage. Take it.

i know RWR can be used to cue IRST, however IR system cant provide range or velocity information on it's own without the help from LRF or Radar ( sending a few pulse for range and velocity measurement)
Range of LFR are relatively short ( around 20-30 km)

geogen wrote:Lastly, after you (equipped with your IRST) take your first shot(s)... note you can also begin to maneuver at greater off-bore angles (to evade the red force's counter-shot) and still be able to keep (and relay said data to other tactical platforms (manned/unmanned in your group) the battle situation on your display, accordingly.
.

how is that any difference from using a radar though ?
I wonder , are we able to built a osf -it on a f -16 to see further and more passive fashion range compared to IR sensor?
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post19 Sep 2015, 18:39

wil59 wrote:
eloise wrote:
geogen wrote:
Thanks for opportunity to respond on this topic, El...

Firstly, a dedicated large aperture IRST can actually provide surprisingly enhanced situational awareness and at greater ranges than one thinks - against certain targets - in certain conditions.

i know IRST can significantly increase SA in certain conditions, such as again VLO target, i just dont see how IRST will really increase F-16 pilot's SA again some target like the F-15 (massive RCS)
.
geogen wrote:Now take into consideration that your modern RWR can indeed help cue your dedicated IRST, which can indeed create the firing solution at max distance to your modern BVR rounds, passively, accordingly. An advantage is an advantage. Take it.

i know RWR can be used to cue IRST, however IR system cant provide range or velocity information on it's own without the help from LRF or Radar ( sending a few pulse for range and velocity measurement)
Range of LFR are relatively short ( around 20-30 km)

geogen wrote:Lastly, after you (equipped with your IRST) take your first shot(s)... note you can also begin to maneuver at greater off-bore angles (to evade the red force's counter-shot) and still be able to keep (and relay said data to other tactical platforms (manned/unmanned in your group) the battle situation on your display, accordingly.
.

how is that any difference from using a radar though ?
I wonder , are we able to built a osf -it on a f -16 to see further and more passive fashion range compared to IR sensor?

excuse my traduction no conformity
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1765
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post19 Sep 2015, 19:25

wil59 wrote:I wonder , are we able to built a osf -it on a f -16 to see further and more passive fashion range compared to IR sensor?


Can you please confirm what you mean by OSF ?

If it fits into a pod the answer is probably yes :wink:
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post21 Sep 2015, 01:18

basher54321 wrote:
wil59 wrote:I wonder , are we able to built a osf -it on a f -16 to see further and more passive fashion range compared to IR sensor?


Can you please confirm what you mean by OSF ?

If it fits into a pod the answer is probably yes :wink:



Agreed! If there's a special requirement for something cost-effectively built into a 'pod'... then such a pod would indeed be a natural (integrated) fit for a modern-era-increment US-build F-16, or even Super Hornet! For an F-15E+ such as a modified F-15SA? Most likely, yes.

It's what modern-era 4th gen platforms are designed for (i.e., relatively rapid and reliable adaptation and integration of systems upgrades).

In other words... Designed for sustainable, responsive, evolution. :ban:
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests