F-16C vs German F-4F
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 22
- Joined: 08 Jan 2006, 00:56
Raptor is right on! In a visual fight you can choose any gameplan vs the F-4, and there's nothing he can do to stop you from gunning him. A BVR war between two AMRAAM shooters is not so much dependent on airframe, it's more a game of tricking your opponent. The F-16 will have the edge though, being able to fly higher and faster (launching first) and being able to venture just a little closer before going out.
I'm also curios on Hunter's gameplan; "throttle up, make a high speed pass...." How will that prevent you from dying?
Dolby
I'm also curios on Hunter's gameplan; "throttle up, make a high speed pass...." How will that prevent you from dying?
Dolby
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 73
- Joined: 15 Mar 2006, 10:01
Last week I talked to one former-USSR aiforce captain who flew Mig-23MLD's about the same topic - and first he laughed for a while.
After Bekaa valley airbattles, where Syrian AF was beaten nearly to death, russian pilots were taught about same tactics I mentioned above - and I have seen those exercises - 1-2 Mig-21bis'es repesented the F-16 and Floggers were flying around, 2-3 started simultaneous slash attacks from different directions. Starting at fairly high altitude, descending at full AB, two mock R-60M launches and away on full speed. When away from Sidewinder kill zone, planes gained altitude and same thing happened again. All this stuff was pretty good coordinated by ground-based guiding crew. Flogger radars were off all the times and planes were armed with 6 R-60.
I dont know how effective it could be in real battle, but counter-F-16 tactics were developed. Tactic like this has more chance than just starting a turning fight, were Flogger, even the MLD has no chance.
When this sh*t happens when Vipers pilot is off guard or on low energy state (maybe from evading another attack), there is a little chance that you can accelelate to catch a Flogger passing at M 1.2-1,5.
Flogger pilots were taught that never start turning fight with F-16. Stay away and use your missiles. If you miss the Apex'is, your only chance is to suprise enemy, because his radar is not seeing everywhere and is RWR will give you away when you lit it. So rely on GCI guidance, make on pass, shot all your missiles, pop your flares and go home.
I think that none of tactics is quarantee of 100% success, but medium range missiles first and then maybe on high speed attack from unsuspected directory gives more chance than turning fight or just eject-eject-eject...
In Vietnam, USAF and USN thought, that electronics and Sparrows will guarantee absolute victory, but it was tactics that finally made the day. First years - enemy that was considered inferior with ill-equipped Mig-17's gunned down multimillion US aircarft and often got away.
After Bekaa valley airbattles, where Syrian AF was beaten nearly to death, russian pilots were taught about same tactics I mentioned above - and I have seen those exercises - 1-2 Mig-21bis'es repesented the F-16 and Floggers were flying around, 2-3 started simultaneous slash attacks from different directions. Starting at fairly high altitude, descending at full AB, two mock R-60M launches and away on full speed. When away from Sidewinder kill zone, planes gained altitude and same thing happened again. All this stuff was pretty good coordinated by ground-based guiding crew. Flogger radars were off all the times and planes were armed with 6 R-60.
I dont know how effective it could be in real battle, but counter-F-16 tactics were developed. Tactic like this has more chance than just starting a turning fight, were Flogger, even the MLD has no chance.
When this sh*t happens when Vipers pilot is off guard or on low energy state (maybe from evading another attack), there is a little chance that you can accelelate to catch a Flogger passing at M 1.2-1,5.
Flogger pilots were taught that never start turning fight with F-16. Stay away and use your missiles. If you miss the Apex'is, your only chance is to suprise enemy, because his radar is not seeing everywhere and is RWR will give you away when you lit it. So rely on GCI guidance, make on pass, shot all your missiles, pop your flares and go home.
I think that none of tactics is quarantee of 100% success, but medium range missiles first and then maybe on high speed attack from unsuspected directory gives more chance than turning fight or just eject-eject-eject...
In Vietnam, USAF and USN thought, that electronics and Sparrows will guarantee absolute victory, but it was tactics that finally made the day. First years - enemy that was considered inferior with ill-equipped Mig-17's gunned down multimillion US aircarft and often got away.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 12 Apr 2006, 18:19
some truth there, but you proved yourself why that wont work these days...gci dependency. Its 1 thing to rely on GCI during peace time during "canned" set ups, and its something completely different when you have radios being jammed, from jammers and from everybody on the radio at 1 time...without gci nobody is sneaking up on anybody...
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 632
- Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
- Location: Romania
Yep, true enough.
I heard about the Jordanian pilots having trouble hearing each other over the comms during the Bekaa valley campaign. Israeli jamming was so powerfull it disrupted radio comm hundreds of km away from the battlefield...and that was 1982 technology!
I heard about the Jordanian pilots having trouble hearing each other over the comms during the Bekaa valley campaign. Israeli jamming was so powerfull it disrupted radio comm hundreds of km away from the battlefield...and that was 1982 technology!
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1682
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 02:00
clown_shoes wrote:some truth there, but you proved yourself why that wont work these days...gci dependency. Its 1 thing to rely on GCI during peace time during "canned" set ups, and its something completely different when you have radios being jammed, from jammers and from everybody on the radio at 1 time...without gci nobody is sneaking up on anybody...
GCI radar will be the first target of Tomahawks and their like in the initial strikes....Also don`t forget that F-16s are bomb trucks and will have F-15 top cover. Before them there will be F-22s ready to swat that F-4
The F-22 could even act as a mini-AWACS if needed. The SeaHarrier with Blue Vixen did that during Allied force over the Adriatic....
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
This is not about tactics though. This is about pure performance analysis. If you gave the best fighter pilot in the whole world (that's every fighter pilot, right?) the full performance charts for both F-16 and F-4F and then gave them a choice between the two, which do you think the pilot would pick? You know, an F-16 would probably even win a foot race from point A to point B despite the fact that an F-4 can do Mach 2.2. The F-16's acceleration is so much better that it would probably spend significantly more time at or near it's top speed in a supersonic dash. Let's not even talk about cruise performance. 
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 73
- Joined: 15 Mar 2006, 10:01
I think that this Soviet AF pilot was right, at least as far as older non-maneuverable planes were facing Flacons with heaters only (like F-16As).
Slashers will launch missiles coming down from altitude at high speed. It gives some advantage to attacker, because his missiles will have greater ranges. Launch will be made from their missiles max range, then they will turn about 90 deg and continue descending.
First salvo will be medium range missiles, like R-23/24T heat seakers, they dont require radar lock.
Defensive guy is probably at low energy state and lost mutual suport during hard maneuvers. Second salvo will be R-60's/R-73s. Falcon will probably see Floggers tail far away and he cant shot. All this tactics will be carried out with 3:1 numerical superiority Soviets had in Europe.
I just made that example to show that there are no invincible planes and there are always tactics to fight.
I I would be a Phantom driver, I would load as much AMRAAMs as I can and will fire from distance. And then will escape. And if I would have JHMCS/AIM-9X for both - I think both planes will be more even.
I found in net that Germans using AN/APG-65 radar set (same as F/A-18A) and this should be able to guide up to 8 AMRAAMs. Sidewinder rails can be used for AIM-120. Can it shot against multiple targets simultaneously - lets say against 8 enemy coming in same lineup?
Or is it limited to 1 target at a time? Can anybody confirm it?
Slashers will launch missiles coming down from altitude at high speed. It gives some advantage to attacker, because his missiles will have greater ranges. Launch will be made from their missiles max range, then they will turn about 90 deg and continue descending.
First salvo will be medium range missiles, like R-23/24T heat seakers, they dont require radar lock.
Defensive guy is probably at low energy state and lost mutual suport during hard maneuvers. Second salvo will be R-60's/R-73s. Falcon will probably see Floggers tail far away and he cant shot. All this tactics will be carried out with 3:1 numerical superiority Soviets had in Europe.
I just made that example to show that there are no invincible planes and there are always tactics to fight.
I I would be a Phantom driver, I would load as much AMRAAMs as I can and will fire from distance. And then will escape. And if I would have JHMCS/AIM-9X for both - I think both planes will be more even.
I found in net that Germans using AN/APG-65 radar set (same as F/A-18A) and this should be able to guide up to 8 AMRAAMs. Sidewinder rails can be used for AIM-120. Can it shot against multiple targets simultaneously - lets say against 8 enemy coming in same lineup?
Or is it limited to 1 target at a time? Can anybody confirm it?
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 12 Apr 2006, 18:19
on the 1 hand you are arguing a jets superiority over another, but then you are arguing missiles as well...so lets make this simple. If you have a F-16 and an F-4, each carrying the same loadout of missiles, the F-16 wins everytime. You cant give 1 jet better missiles and then argue that it is better than the other...as for your last question, the AN/APG 65 radar handbook can confirm your question, find a copy and youll have your answer...
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
HunterKiller,
You said the matchup was an F-16C vs. an F-4F ICE. Both planes carrying winders and AMRAAMs. This would amount to 4 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9M for the F-16C and 4 AIM-120 and 4 AIM-9M for the F-4F. If the F-4F can carry AIM-120s on the wing rails, then I guess you could talk about 6 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9. Whatever. You said AIM-120 and AIM-9, not me. So we're talking about aircraft versus aircraft from a performance point of view. Looking at the performance charts I supplied, you can see very easily that the only thing the F-4 has going for it is max speed at high altitude. In every other way it falls short of the F-16C. Turning, acceleration, etc. The F-16's transonic capabilities is where it really destroys the F-4E/F and for you to keep arguing the way you are after I went through all the trouble to post those charts strikes me as sour grapes.
I'm not sure why you love the F-4F so much or why you think any pilot would choose it over an F-16C, but you apparently do. I didn't post just my opinion, I posted hard data. You don't understand how to interpret the hard data so you keep arguing, changing your argument in attempt to somehow win the original argument you started. I don't know how Russian MiGs came into this discussion either. We're talking about the F-4F, remember? And if you want to talk about perfect conditions for 3 F-4Fs to win against 1 F-16C, go right ahead. You're not actually proving anything, but be my guest.
Learn how to read a 1G Ps plot and an EM diagram and then get back to me. I won't waste anymore time on this one if I can help it.
You said the matchup was an F-16C vs. an F-4F ICE. Both planes carrying winders and AMRAAMs. This would amount to 4 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9M for the F-16C and 4 AIM-120 and 4 AIM-9M for the F-4F. If the F-4F can carry AIM-120s on the wing rails, then I guess you could talk about 6 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9. Whatever. You said AIM-120 and AIM-9, not me. So we're talking about aircraft versus aircraft from a performance point of view. Looking at the performance charts I supplied, you can see very easily that the only thing the F-4 has going for it is max speed at high altitude. In every other way it falls short of the F-16C. Turning, acceleration, etc. The F-16's transonic capabilities is where it really destroys the F-4E/F and for you to keep arguing the way you are after I went through all the trouble to post those charts strikes me as sour grapes.
I'm not sure why you love the F-4F so much or why you think any pilot would choose it over an F-16C, but you apparently do. I didn't post just my opinion, I posted hard data. You don't understand how to interpret the hard data so you keep arguing, changing your argument in attempt to somehow win the original argument you started. I don't know how Russian MiGs came into this discussion either. We're talking about the F-4F, remember? And if you want to talk about perfect conditions for 3 F-4Fs to win against 1 F-16C, go right ahead. You're not actually proving anything, but be my guest.
Learn how to read a 1G Ps plot and an EM diagram and then get back to me. I won't waste anymore time on this one if I can help it.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 73
- Joined: 15 Mar 2006, 10:01
No airman tells that graphs make the victory, you just keep saying the opposite. Thats way I talked about MiG driver who was experienced airman, 2 tours in Afganistan - he pointed out that no weapon guarantees automatically superiority, because there are too many variables and planes rarely go face to face. He just took an example, when his newest Flogger was "hit" by two Mig-15UTI Midgets during desert exercises that just popped out from nowhere. I am just a infantryman, no pilot, but also no computer air combat theorist.
Last edited by HunterKiller on 29 May 2006, 15:59, edited 1 time in total.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
First off, why are you copying my words from a completely unrelated thread into this one? I don't understand how it relates to anything going on in this thread nor do I understand why you think that post makes me look foolish.
Also, I am not an airman. Where did you get the idea that I was? I've actually never flown in a real aircraft in my life. I simply have a bachelors degree in aerospace engineering. I'm not even boasting about that... it's no Ph.D.
Anyway, I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. It seems like you're only interested in trolling now.
Also, I am not an airman. Where did you get the idea that I was? I've actually never flown in a real aircraft in my life. I simply have a bachelors degree in aerospace engineering. I'm not even boasting about that... it's no Ph.D.
Anyway, I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. It seems like you're only interested in trolling now.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 73
- Joined: 15 Mar 2006, 10:01
I am sorry for last post I will delete it.
But real thing that made to raise eyebows was that people show charts and like thats all it takes to win the fight.
What about real combat, putting aside your graphs, you have no idea what combat is and how little technical data sometimes matters when it comes to tactics and real battlefield situation, where they are too many variables to determine what will happen.
That you are talking is theory, in practice in can be Bravo Sierra as well.
This is not just some test flight situation in Nevada when 2 jets going face to face. Even test conditions there are variables like first tactics and so one.
Turning faster does not mean neccessarily that Rhino cannot shot at it. There are countless options.
No real pilot will say after looking some graphs that he will win/loose. And so far Falcon is not turning 4 times faster or climbing 5 times faster you just cant say that it will 100% win.
I am not a fan for Rhino and I am sure that Falcon is better plane in every aspect, but not so much better to give 100% victory possibilty. First and foremost pilot mistakes determine most fights.
But real thing that made to raise eyebows was that people show charts and like thats all it takes to win the fight.
What about real combat, putting aside your graphs, you have no idea what combat is and how little technical data sometimes matters when it comes to tactics and real battlefield situation, where they are too many variables to determine what will happen.
That you are talking is theory, in practice in can be Bravo Sierra as well.
This is not just some test flight situation in Nevada when 2 jets going face to face. Even test conditions there are variables like first tactics and so one.
Turning faster does not mean neccessarily that Rhino cannot shot at it. There are countless options.
No real pilot will say after looking some graphs that he will win/loose. And so far Falcon is not turning 4 times faster or climbing 5 times faster you just cant say that it will 100% win.
I am not a fan for Rhino and I am sure that Falcon is better plane in every aspect, but not so much better to give 100% victory possibilty. First and foremost pilot mistakes determine most fights.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
Well, it sounds like you're debating another issue now. I never said that a flight of F-4Fs (or several of them) couldn't defeat an equal, greater, or lesser number of opposing F-16Cs. This was your original posting:
Now I assume you were talking about a 1v1 situation here but I definitely didn't assume you were talking unequal numbers. I don't know what "typical tactics" would be exactly for either aircraft going up against the other, but I would assume the tactics would be to each aircraft's greatest strengths. No pilot mistakes, and the USAF and German crews are both likely to have good tactics. Both aircraft/flights have AWACS or GCI support. So the question is... where does the F-4F have a tactical advantage.
I guess they have 2 extra sidewinders, right? Not sure about the radar... might be more powerful than an APG-68 v10 (or whatever the latest F-16C block 50/52 radar version is). The thing is, the F-16 has a fairly low RCS compared to the F-4, so the F-16 might see the F-4 with its less powerful radar farther out than the F-4 can see the F-16 with its more powerful radar. That's just what happens when you have a huge RCS like the F-4... you get detected farther out than an aircraft with a significantly smaller RCS with respect to the same radar.
The F-4's high altitude, high speed "advantage" really isn't an advantage against the F-16. Those kinds of speeds are for an intercept mission, not a BVR fight (and especially not a WVR fight) against a fighter that accelerates faster, turns tighter, and climbs faster from the low subsonic all the way through the transonic regime. Anyway... perhaps you'd like to state what your new conditions are, because they certainly don't sound like what you posted in your original message.
HunterKiller wrote:Latest block F-16C with AMRAAM's and winders, no HMS, no AESA
German Air Defence F-4F, ICE upgraded, AMRAAMs, APG-65 radar, winders
USAF crew vs German crew, no pilot mistakes, typical tactics (no turn-flight in F-4)
Guidance same level (both AWACS or ground radar).
Who has the edge?
Now I assume you were talking about a 1v1 situation here but I definitely didn't assume you were talking unequal numbers. I don't know what "typical tactics" would be exactly for either aircraft going up against the other, but I would assume the tactics would be to each aircraft's greatest strengths. No pilot mistakes, and the USAF and German crews are both likely to have good tactics. Both aircraft/flights have AWACS or GCI support. So the question is... where does the F-4F have a tactical advantage.
I guess they have 2 extra sidewinders, right? Not sure about the radar... might be more powerful than an APG-68 v10 (or whatever the latest F-16C block 50/52 radar version is). The thing is, the F-16 has a fairly low RCS compared to the F-4, so the F-16 might see the F-4 with its less powerful radar farther out than the F-4 can see the F-16 with its more powerful radar. That's just what happens when you have a huge RCS like the F-4... you get detected farther out than an aircraft with a significantly smaller RCS with respect to the same radar.
The F-4's high altitude, high speed "advantage" really isn't an advantage against the F-16. Those kinds of speeds are for an intercept mission, not a BVR fight (and especially not a WVR fight) against a fighter that accelerates faster, turns tighter, and climbs faster from the low subsonic all the way through the transonic regime. Anyway... perhaps you'd like to state what your new conditions are, because they certainly don't sound like what you posted in your original message.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
I don't know of any specific guide. Just do a search on Google and see what you come up with. I could recommend some books that would explain the details, but the Google option is cheaper.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests