F-16C vs German F-4F

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2006, 12:13
by HunterKiller
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?

RE: F-16C vs German F-4F

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2006, 13:27
by Raptor_One
Well, there are a bunch of F-16C blocks from 25 to 50/52 in the USAF inventory, each with different flight performance. That being said, I doubt even the worst performing F-16C (block 42 I believe) would be at a disadvantage at any time with regard to the F-4F. The F-16C is faster, more maneuverable, and more powerful. It's got less drag, more lift, and a better T/W ratio. There's just no competition there. The F-4 could try to fight in the vertical and it would get beat there just as easily as if it tried to fight in the horizontal. It could try zoom and boom tactics, but the F-16C's pilot could zoom faster and boom from further away as a result. (i.e. launch missiles with higher velocity due to better acceleration). The F-16 could also do a better job evading an F-4F's AMRAAMs.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2006, 14:00
by HunterKiller
I agree with opinion above, but outcome will depend on tactics. In Vietnam, Mig-21 was supposed to be superior, but somehow guys like Olds outmaneuvered them and beat them really bad.

I looked at the numbers (note sure 100%) but F-4E is a bit different beast than Vietnam F-4C, in horizontal, the E-model has a better turning ability than the tightest-turning Mig-21F-13, not to mention 30% heavier PDS or MF.

When F-14 entered service, in was far inferior to F-4's in service and in mock dogfights F-4 usually had the edge. Only excuse for F-14 was Phoenix.

In Top Gun and Red Flag instuctors have beaten F-18s and F-16's repeatedly, flying aircraft that are far inferior to 4 gen jets - F-5, F-21 and A-4.

Once I was told that F-16 is inferior to larger jets above M 1.5, because it does not have variable geometry intake that larger planes (and Mig-s) have.

I also disagree, that F-16 is faster. It is NOT. Put 4 winders and 4 Amraams like F-4 and IT IS NOT. F-16 is rather M 1.8 airplane, not M 2.2 airplane like F-4

In tailchase, I dont think that F-16 wins. F-4E climb rate ise 240 m/sec, F-16 is 240, F-18 only 228. I dont see the overwhelming superiority.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2006, 14:51
by Raptor_One
I don't know what F-16 you're talking about or what F-4 you're talking about, but I know for a fact you're mistaken about the F-16C's lack of total superiority. Will it do top end as fast as an F-4? No. That's all though. An F-4E isn't going to be that fast with 4x4 AIM-120 and AIM-9M. How fast do you think an F-15 is in that config at a nominal gross weight? It's nowhere close to Mach 2.5. Neither is an F-4. You're talking about clean performance. A block 50 F-16C would eat an F-4E for lunch. Put a top gun instructor in that puppy if you want to bring pilot skill into this. See how Top Gun pilot in F-16C block 50 does against a top German F-4F pilot. He will dog that pilot without even having to do anything fancy. Your numbers for climb rate are not accurate for a late model F-16C either. The Block 50's performance is sick! The acceleration is outstanding and way better than an F-4E's.

Just looked at some F-4E charts... no way is the performance as good as you say. The thing barely does Mach 2 with a light A-A combat load. Very similar to the F-16C block 50, but nowhere near the excess power throughout the entire flight envelope. The block 50 will easily break through the 800 KCAS speed limit when clean (not with underwing missiles though... wintip missiles... yes). The F-4E will only do about Mach 1.1 at sea level for example. The F-16 needs to stop at 800 KCAS/Mach 1.2 according to the tech orders, but it will go much faster if allowed (late models).

Anyway... the F-4E is not a Mach 2.2 airplane... not even clean. I just looked at its 1G Ps charts. I'm sure you could find them on the Internet yourself. Load it up with a 4x4 loadout and it won't even do Mach 2. Then again, neither will the F-16C. But its loaded performance is still better than the F-4E's... by about the same amount that its clean performance is.

Also, the F-14 is superior in performance to the F-4E. It's easily faster, a better turner, etc. Can a skilled pilot in an inferior jet beat a lesser-skilled pilot in a superior jet? Sure can. But what's the point in debating those things? Assume you're putting the best fighter pilot in the world up against his clone.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 08:16
by HunterKiller
Every time I read this subforum (F-16 vs whoknows) that makes me feel happy, because in any topic conclusion is that, F-16 ourmaneuvers,outguns, outranges, outclimbs everything exept another F-16 :lol:

F-16C initial climb rate is 50 000 ft/min (254 m/sek)

F-4E initial climb rate is 49 000 ft/min (248 m/sek)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

Where you can see the vertical superiority? Difference is not that big to make F-16 superior in vertical.

F-4F is basically F-4E airframe with some fuel tanks and AIM-7 related equipment removed (German F-4F-s were initally unable to carry Sparrow). So that vertical performance may be even better than original F-4E. Why- it carries less fuel and light F-18 avionics set.

I think that in high speed vertical maneuvers they are pretty close. In horizontal, Phantom does not stand a chance of course.

We are not talking about Vietnam-age gunless F-4B/C-s with heavy avionics and clilmb rates about 150 m/sek

F-4E got serious upgrade by Agile Eagle programm and it is TOTALLY different machine. IAF proved that. An F-4E will outmaneuver ANY Mig-21 both in horizontal and in vertical. And Mig-21 was premier Mach 2 dogfighter of this age.

If we add to both Joint Helmet and AIM-9X (just for justification) I dont think
that F-16 is greatly superior.

As far as I know, Germans are practising group tactiks, where more maneuverable enemy is subjected to 2-3 coordinated slash attacs from different directions. Yes, they can do it, because they have WSO who coordinates the game.

I thing that German Phantom is still dangerous oponent.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 10:23
by Raptor_One
First off, those internet sites are not authorities in any way. I have actual performance data on both the F-4E and various different blocks of F-16. I'm not going off of an internet site that just lists a few interesting figures for some unknown block of F-16C and the F-4E. Just hang around and I'll post some of the F-16 and F-4 data I've found in the public domain through a variety of sources... most notably technical journal articles.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 11:04
by HunterKiller
Not depending on block, F-16 initial climb rate is not more than 270 m/sek.

F-4E climbrates I checked from various aviation books and F-4E numbers are allways between 228-240 m/sek

Even later generation Mig-21bis has initial climb rate of 240 m/sek

F/A-18C climb rate is 228 m/sek

Mig-29 climb rate is about 330 m/sek

F-4 climb rate is low only for earlier models that have no maneuvering slats and older "smokey" engines - about 150 m/sek

Just only example how climb rate can be improved - early Mig-21 climb rate was about 130 m/sek, later models all over 200 m/sek

Mr Raptor wake up - even F-104 can climb at 240 m/sek

All climb rates are measured at sea level, clean, with nominal internal fuel.

Israeli modified F-4-2000 Kurnass had even supercruise in clean.

F-4 maneuverability was greatly improved during Vietnam in 1972 and later F-4E machines are potent machines for air defence even today.

I will not agree, that in vertical F-16's performance is so greatly better that it can eat F-4 later models.

Plus I noted, that German machines are about 750 kg lighter because of less fuel and lesser heavy garbage electronics (avionics basically come from F/A-18A).

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 11:14
by Raptor_One
Okay... here come some attachments. All of this data is in the public domain as far as I know. I can source most of it, although some of the EM diagrams posted were given to me by one of the Falcon 4 community developers. He stated they were all unclassified and given to him by someone who worked in a defense-type position (if I remember correctly). The 1G Ps charts you could find on the internet. That's where I found them. I can source them all.

Next post will have the F-4 data.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 11:22
by Raptor_One
Here are the F-4E diagrams. I was looking at a combat load before when I stated the F-4E couldn't do Mach 2.2. When I say combat load, I mean something like you see in the EM diagram charts. Clean, you see it can do Mach 2.2 exactly.

And just everyone understands, initial climb rate at sea level doesn't necessarly mean that much and depends on a bunch of factors and will vary greatly depending on which F-16 block you're talking about. A block 50 will have a much higher climb rate than a block 42, for example. It will have a slightly higher climb rate than even a block 52. You MUST quote F-16 block number when talking performance. The performance of the F-16 has changed a great deal from the initial C models to the late C models. I am clearly awake.

And I can post Ps plots for the F-104 if you'd like too. What's your point?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 11:29
by Raptor_One
Here's another F-4 EM diagram someone sent me a while ago. It's hard to make out... I think it's from the -1. Can anyone tell what missiles it has loaded for this config based on the obscure writing?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 11:46
by boff180
Every time I read this subforum (F-16 vs whoknows) that makes me feel happy, because in any topic conclusion is that, F-16 ourmaneuvers,outguns, outranges, outclimbs everything exept another F-16

Unless its a Typhoon or a Raptor

Seriously though, I have seen an F-16C and an upgraded F-4F put through their paces in the same airspace, and the F-16 just runs rings around it I'm afraid.

Andy :lol:

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 11:53
by Raptor_One
So... let's talk low level acceleration. The F-16C shown in the chart is much faster with higher excess power at lower airspeeds reaching a maximum of 800+ Ps in the transonic region. The F-4 only manages 700+ Ps. And it can't even break the 800 KCAS limit the F-16C passes right through. I must admit that the clean F-4E 1G Ps chart is a bit confusing at the maximum speed limit. Does the F-4E have a sub 800 KCAS limit? Anyway... the charts clearly show that until you get the F-4E well supersonic, it doesn't perform or accelerate anywhere near the F-16C. The F-16C has optimized transonic performance while the F-4E has optimized supersonic performance. I can guarantee people here that the numbers for a Block 50 would be better than the "F-16C" chart you see above.

Anyway... this clean performance WILL go down quite rapidly once you load weapons. Maybe I will look into purchasing an F-4E flight manual with all the performance charts so I can see exactly what things are like. So what does this all prove. At transonic airspeeds, the F-16C (any block really), has more excess power all the way through the envelope. If you understand how to read a Ps plot, you'll see that vertical maneuvering in the transonic region would go to the F-16C. By the way... I have a block 30 EM diagram that I found on the internet (an air force academy course website actually) and it shows its clean performance for 30,000 ft. I have similar EM diagrams for the F-4E not already posted. The block 30 outperforms a lightly loaded F-4E flying 10,000 ft. lower!!! Hahaha. The F-4E cannot maintain turns well at all. And its max turn rates are nowhere near as high as the F-16's. I don't care if you add leading edge slats and whatnot... the F-16 will whup it all day long at high altitude and low altitude.

The only thing going for an F-4E is top end and that's just straight and level. And it will have a hard time getting there with an F-16 in chase as the F-16 accelerates much better through the subsonic and transonic regime. The latest blocks reach their top speed of around Mach 2.05 rather fast even at 40,000 ft.

Time to stop basing performance analysis on internet websites and start using data that you can actually analyze in detail.

Who needs to wake up now? LOL...

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 11:55
by Raptor_One
boff180 wrote:
Every time I read this subforum (F-16 vs whoknows) that makes me feel happy, because in any topic conclusion is that, F-16 ourmaneuvers,outguns, outranges, outclimbs everything exept another F-16

Unless its a Typhoon or a Raptor

Seriously though, I have seen an F-16C and an upgraded F-4F put through their paces in the same airspace, and the F-16 just runs rings around it I'm afraid.

Andy :lol:

Unless of course the F-4F is at Mach 2+!! :) Wait... nobody flies rings around anything at Mach 2. :D

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 13:04
by HunterKiller
If F-4 driver starts to turn on subsonic speed with F-16, I think he should be insane. :lol:

I would throttle up, make high-speed pass, pop some missiles and head for the deck.

In group fight I would concentrate 2-3 aircraft from different directions against in same time one F-16 and I doubt whether it can evade 4-6 missiles.

When you look at the share climb numbers, I still cant see F-16s big advantage.

4 AMRAAMs wont hurt F-4 peformance hard, because they are recessed and dont pose a big drag (unlike underwing missilles). And they are not heavy compared to aircraft overall weight.

But Raptor, you sent only turn graphs - but what about climb performance . what are the actual numbers? You said that F-16 will outclimb, but how - when momentary and continous turn rates are almost same?

Instant climb rates are allmost same? Or am I wrong? Share subsonic climb rate from sealevel is not very impressing on F-16 - I think newer Floggers can even do it, not to mention Fulcrum and Flanker.

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2006, 16:05
by Raptor_One
HunterKiller... I don't have the time or inclination to give a lesson in flight mechanics (I only have a BS in aerospace engineering so I'm no professor). I do know my stuff in this area though, and you need to understand that those charts I just posted are indirect indications of both aircraft's ability to climb, turn, or accelerate in level flight. From the 1G Ps chart, you can graphically determine the minimum time to climb profile. You can also see that since the F-16 has a good deal more excess power at significantly lower airspeeds than the F-4, it has higher inititial climb rate.

Also, your statements about the F-16 losing lots of its performance with a full A-A missile load are just incorrect. The drag index for an F-16 with 4 AIM-120C, 2 AIM-9M (or even better... AIM-9X), and a jammer pod on the centerline station is quite low. Not even drag index 50 which still yields impressive performance. More like drag index 30. I'd have to check. Also, as you can see from the charts I posted that when the F-4 isn't in a clean config, it's maximum speeds go down quite a bit. An F-16C Block 50 or 52 can still do about Mach 1.9 at altitude with a drag index of 50.

You act as though those recessed missile stations on the belly are magic and lead to no additional drag. Wrong. The F-4 also has pylons for AIM-9s under the wing which reduce performance like the F-16's underwing pylons. If you want to get technical, AIM-120s carried on the wintips actually help aerodynamic performance and incur ZERO drag penalty. They have a drag index of zero when carried on the wingtips.

By the way, how fast do you think an F-15C will go with only 4 AIM-7s carried under the belly? Bet you it's not as fast as you think.

Anyway, stop obsessing over silly statistics you find on internet sites. They mean very little and don't tell you anything about overall performance. You need to analyze charts like I posted very carefully which you obviously have not otherwise you wouldn't still be touting how great the F-4E or F is vs. early model F-16Cs and late model F-16As. Give me a break, would you? LOL? Look at the F-4's energy bleed rate and low max turn rate at all altitudes compared to the F-16A Block 15. It's terrible. So is its acceleration which is a direct function of excess power. You need to know how to read these charts. If you don't, don't bother going on about climb rates you read off some website. Those are the most generic pieces of technical data you can get. What does it say about max altitude? 50,000 ft.+, right? LOL... I rest my case.


Unread postPosted: 28 May 2006, 12:40
by Dolby
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?


Unread postPosted: 28 May 2006, 14:33
by HunterKiller
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.

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2006, 18:55
by clown_shoes
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...

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2006, 21:23
by RoAF
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!

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2006, 23:37
by snypa777
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 :wink:

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....

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2006, 23:47
by Raptor_One
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. :)

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 07:53
by HunterKiller
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?

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 09:22
by clown_shoes
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...

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 10:58
by Raptor_One

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. :)

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 12:50
by HunterKiller
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.

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 13:47
by Raptor_One
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.

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 15:59
by HunterKiller
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.

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 17:38
by Raptor_One
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:

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.

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2006, 04:24
by cmjohnson
Could someone point me to a guide to reading the E-M diagrams and interpreting them?


Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2006, 05:50
by Raptor_One
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. :)

Re: F-16C vs German F-4F

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2016, 18:11
by saberrider