F-16 versus F-15

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

hansundfranz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2004, 10:47

Unread post13 Jan 2005, 02:04

Lets not get into politics (i`d say your views are very typical for an american posting on sucha board but that does not make then valid, but as I said lets better not get into politics) or nationalistic chest beating. Try to be objective. The Superbug is defintly not a capabale A2A machine or designed to counter the worst threat, Same for the F35m a pretty decent tactical bomber with relatively long range but less then ideal capabilities in the A2A arena.

IMHO this http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... c&start=30
Was an interesting thread pointing out things that are wrong with the US Forces. In short they are so sure to be the best and to be miles ahead of any possible oposition so that they could be in for a nasty surprise,
Offline

smorriso

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2004, 05:09

Unread post13 Jan 2005, 05:14

The Superbug is defintly not a capabale A2A machine or designed to counter the worst threat


Please, enlighten us as to why you think that. Any data, engagements, anything that you may have would be very interesting.
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post13 Jan 2005, 06:08

Lets not get into politics (i`d say your views are very typical for an american posting on sucha board but that does not make then valid, but as I said lets better not get into politics) or nationalistic chest beating. Try to be objective.


It ain't braggin' if you can back it up! I'm not just saying that the US is better because I live in America, I've formed my opinions on knowledge and personal experience. The bit about oil for food being corrupt is being investigated right now and preliminary reports aren't favoring the UN. If these countries were getting kickbacks from Saddam, it severely impeaches their credibility. My dad was a cop for many years and he taught me to check the credibity of the sources. Right now, the UN doesn't have much credibility with me.

About throwing the terrorists out, hey, we got hit pretty bad and we don't suffer such behavior as harboring terrorists gladly. Basically, just be a good neighbor and don't help our enemies. Sorry if I seemed to get too political there, but you were talking about the best way to beat the US. I just said the best way was not to get into a fight in the first place.

The Superbug is defintly not a capabale A2A machine or designed to counter the worst threat


I second smorisso and request some hard information to back up such an inflammitory and severe accusation as that! I know plenty of pilots who would disagree with you there!!!

Same for the F35m a pretty decent tactical bomber with relatively long range but less then ideal capabilities in the A2A arena


Again, I request that you back this up. The first production JSF hasn't even rolled off the production line yet, let alone started testing! That, in my book makes this particular accusation nearly baseless and baseless accusations are the quickest way to lose credibility and respect not only with me, but with many other members of this forum.

IMHO this http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... c&start=30
Was an interesting thread pointing out things that are wrong with the US Forces. In short they are so sure to be the best and to be miles ahead of any possible oposition so that they could be in for a nasty surprise,


I took the time to register on that forum so that I could actually read what you were referring to and make an informed response. After reading it, the sources aren't given in the first post for analisys and verification. I like to check into the actual information when possible. If you read the later posts on this page (I didn't read the rest of the thread), I think you'll see that everyone seems to be saying that either the exercises weren't scored properly (Cope India being scored on a PC and not being held on India's ACM field) or may have been slanted for some reason (US vs Israel, Cope India not using AWACS). This doesn't back up your assertion that the US is lacking.

Something else that you fail to take into account is that exercises are scripted and planned to test certain ideas and to better develop tactics. Without knowing all the details of the planning for these exercises, how can you be sure that they weren't being used to test new ideas?

Now as for the bit about the Kitty Hawk being overflown, did you miss the part about it having just pulled out of a friendly port during peacetime and conducting refueling operations at the time? Did you also miss the part about the battle group's SAM boss being replaced instead of the Kitty Hawk's skipper? I suspect that the details of this incident on the US Navy's side are probably classified, so we can't discuss them even if we knew them. Without both sides of the story, how can we figure out what exactly happened?

I've given examples to back up each of my assertions. You have failed to do this, especially with your attacks on the Super Hornet and the JSF. Please back up your accusations.
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post13 Jan 2005, 06:11

Oh yeah, about the Super Hornet - 10 AMRAAMs, 2 AIM-9Xs, JHMCS,and the ability to prosecute six targets simultaneously all make for an interesting encounter in air to air.
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

cru

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 08:25

Unread post13 Jan 2005, 07:31

When assesing US air power,one shoud not limit himself to fighters. That's a lot more--AWACS and Rivet Joint that provide an unrivaled situation awarness and dissiminate it using the mentioned link 16 (with a mere 2 seconds delay) to hundreds of fighters (so they are not obliged to use their radar, and still having a picture about what is 200-300 km ahead),tankers that allow fighters to stay upmore than the ennmy, enough AMRAAMs to fire 2-3 against every target.

If there is a serious threath to US air power, this would be SA 10, SA 12, or the future SA 400 and not the Su 30
Offline

hansundfranz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2004, 10:47

Unread post13 Jan 2005, 15:01

No comments on politics,

The super hornet is no A2A machine because it
lacks the necessary acceleration and high speed perfornace to win a BVR fight, top speed of mach 1.6, very draggy, heavy weight and underpowered compared to real A2A machine sof the same generation
Many pilots complained about the high speed performance of the F18s and the superbug is even worse the the reguar hornets.

But hey, it was not desigend to be a fighter, its a replacement for the A6 and it has the option to self escort against fighers without any meaningful BVR capabilities.

The JSF: Look at its possible loadouts, its thrust to weight ration the large amount in internal fuel, the pubsilshed specs and its clear that the JSF is not designed to be a fighter, Haveing to explain this makes me wonder if you really know anything or if you are just a fanboy.

The US navy is betting the farm on the chance that the Air force will be able to get bases for teh F22s somewhere in the vicinity and that the Air foce takes care of A2A.
This is not preparing for the worst, it is preparing for gun boat politics afgainst 3rd world countries that can´t put up a fight.

Since you did not get it now, I do not wish for a war where the USA losses (not based on political cosiderations such as loosing votes because to many grunts get killed but really loose cause the costs become to high to justify trying any longer).

Just hypotetically what would be te best course of action of an upcomeing nation that wants to prepare for a possible war against the USA.

Develop the same capablities for sensor fusing and GPS guiding as the USA has
or
make the usage of such systems practically impossible for everybody on the battlefield,

What method would be cheaper?
Would you gain and edge if you can do the same then your enemy can? No

Woud you gain an edge if you deny him something he is used to, and invested lots of training time into using these systems.
Your guys of course train to fight autonomus and nothing else. Yes then this would give you an edge.

Other nations are getting AWACS and other surveillance planes, too. Other nations also develop military capablities in space

No doubt you can beat a run down dictatorship which have soviet equipment form the 70s. But thats not our (relatively hypotetica)l discussion. there won´t be a war against China or India. it would simply be to costly but just for the "what if" discussion. YOu have 5 years to prepare your nation for a war against the USA. What tactics and techonolgy would you imrove and develop to make it as hard as possible for then?

About bragging:
If you claim to be the worlds best heavy weight boxer but all you did was beat up 3rd rate amateur featherweigts, then it is bragging
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post13 Jan 2005, 19:22

The super hornet is no A2A machine because it
lacks the necessary acceleration and high speed perfornace to win a BVR fight, top speed of mach 1.6, very draggy, heavy weight and underpowered compared to real A2A machine sof the same generation
Many pilots complained about the high speed performance of the F18s and the superbug is even worse the the reguar hornets.

But hey, it was not desigend to be a fighter, its a replacement for the A6 and it has the option to self escort against fighers without any meaningful BVR capabilities.


The Super Hornet is an all around machine. Also, superior pilots win engagements, not superior planes.

I personally don't believe any public figures on top speed that are quoted for an aircraft as new as this. Even if the top speed is only mach 1.6, I haven't read where many combat jets have had to use their top speed lately.

As for draggy etc, all the pilots I've talked to like it just fine. Of course it's going to be heavy - it's a carrier jet! You're going to need a lot of reinforcing to take that sort of beating. Something else to consider in the Super Hornet's favor is its superior nose pointing ability - I'd like to see an adversary try to control their jet as well at high angles of attack. Even if the Super Hornet's slow, it's still a deadly threat!

The JSF: Look at its possible loadouts, its thrust to weight ration the large amount in internal fuel, the pubsilshed specs and its clear that the JSF is not designed to be a fighter

Possible loadouts are still that - possible and not final. The design is not yet final. That said, it has places to put four AMRAAMs internally, four more externally, and two sidewinders on the wings. That sounds like air to air, at least for me.

Because the design isn't final yet, the thrust to weight ratio isn't set in stone yet, either. Lockheed has put the jet on a diet and has reduced the weight greatly. That said, what part of a vertical landing doesn't require a 1:1 ratio?

A large amount of internal fuel means longer legs to me. I don't know about you, but I think it'll probably burn off some gas before it gets into a fight. Also, more gas inside means less gas outside, which means more weapons outside. Sounds good to me.

By published specs you mean published speculations, right? I say speculations because THE DESIGN ISN'T FINAL YET!!! We still have a complete test program to go through! What makes you think the jet won't improve?

Haveing to explain this makes me wonder if you really know anything or if you are just a fanboy.


Right back at ya :twisted: ! I'd think someone who purports to know everything about these jets would know that an aircraft that's still in development isn't finalized and that nobody can make 100% accurate statements regarding the finished aircraft's capabilities because they haven't been finished yet!

I really don't like personal attacks or insults and "fanboy" sure sounds like an insult. I said that your statements about the JSF were baseless because you didn't back them up with any hard information. So far, the only information you have given is advice to look at the possible loadouts, low thrust to weight, and large internal fuel of an aircraft that hasn't even entered testing in a final form. I never insulted you, instead I spoke my mind about your assertions and asked you to back them up.

The US navy is betting the farm on the chance that the Air force will be able to get bases for teh F22s somewhere in the vicinity and that the Air foce takes care of A2A.
This is not preparing for the worst, it is preparing for gun boat politics afgainst 3rd world countries that can´t put up a fight.


The US Navy understands that you can't fit an entire squadron of AWACS, another squadron of dedicated air to air, another squadron of air to ground, another squadron of tankers, another squadron of dedicated CAS, another squadron of dedicated electronic warfare, maintenance and support (specialized spare parts, etc.) services, weapons and everything else for all those different aircraft and their systems onto one carrier and still have room for a flight deck! Have you ever been on a US aircraft carrier??? I have! GOOD GOD IT'S SMALL IN THERE!!! I've been on the Ranger, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, and the Midway. I've also watched as the Nimitz, Lincoln, Carl Vinson, Ronald Reagan, and many others come and go from downtown San Diego. Those boats are big compared to most others, but for what they do they can never have enough space!

The Super Hornet is a great air to air jet, especially in the right hands - see above. It's also a great air to mud jet and the JHMCS ain't just for air to air. The US Navy is thinking that the Air Force has global reach and if the situation warrants, we still have nuclear ICBMs that can fly at a moment's notice. One or two carrier battle groups are not now nor have they ever been meant to fight and win a conventional war all by themselves. It's the joint forces concept! Even back in WWII, carriers were used to provide air support against other ships and land based forces. They provide the quickly deployable air power that's needed right now.

With all that in mind, think about what you need on a Carrier. You need a jet that will get the job done in air to air, air to mud, electronic warfare, and tanking. The Super Hornet is pretty darn good in air to air and air to mud, it's taking over the job of tanking from the S-3 because it does a better job, and they're developing it for electronic warfare because they think it should do better than the EA-6B in that area.

This isn't "preparing for gun boat politics against 3rd world countries that can't put up a fight, it's playing its part in the grand sceme of global defense of US interests and being a team player.

Since you did not get it now, I do not wish for a war where the USA losses (not based on political cosiderations such as loosing votes because to many grunts get killed but really loose cause the costs become to high to justify trying any longer).


I got it the first time and I'm still saying that it ain't gonna happen, at least not because the military can't handle the situation. If you think about it, the reasons for "losing" a war are pretty simple. Either too many people on your side die for the public's comfort level (same thing goes for the monetary cost of the campaign), or your cities are rubble and the opposing side pulls your leaders out at gunpoint. The former is far more likely than the latter. The only war we've lost for the first reason was Vietnam. We lost Vietnam because the politicians restricted the US forces too much. I'm pretty sure the outcome would've been different if we hadn't halted bombing every time the North Vietnamese wanted peace talks, thus letting them rebuild their defenses. Letting politicians designate what targets could and could not be hit and which ingress and egress routes was also a bad idea there. We have yet to lose one for the second reason and I don't think we ever will.

Just hypotetically what would be te best course of action of an upcomeing nation that wants to prepare for a possible war against the USA.

Develop the same capablities for sensor fusing and GPS guiding as the USA has
or
make the usage of such systems practically impossible for everybody on the battlefield,

What method would be cheaper?
Would you gain and edge if you can do the same then your enemy can?

Woud you gain an edge if you deny him something he is used to, and invested lots of training time into using these systems.
Your guys of course train to fight autonomus and nothing else. Yes then this would give you an edge.


Hypothetically, I'd say you should spend as much as you can on attempting to gain parity. As I've said, denying us these systems would be a minor annoyance, but we still train to fight without them so we'll still be ready for this. I'd also bring back barrage balloons to counter the cruise missiles that will surely be headed your way and invest heavily in shoulder launched or IR guided SAMs that can't be tracked by their radar signatures. Of course, if the SAM isn't shoulder fired, you'd better be able to move it really quick because launching a missile will compromise the launcher's location and make it a high priority target. Of course there are still those pesky B-2s and F-117s to deal with... Don't forget that the reason the Nighthawk was lost over Europe was that they were being told by higher ups to use the same ingress and egress routes and this predictability lead to a guns kill. I don't think we'll make that mistake again!

there won´t be a war against China or India. it would simply be to costly


WWII was too costly! The reason we get into wars is that the other side isn't being reasonable or rational!

Other nations are getting AWACS and other surveillance planes, too. Other nations also develop military capablities in space


I'm pretty sure they're not as capable as ours and we have more experience employing them. Advantage US.

YOu have 5 years to prepare your nation for a war against the USA. What tactics and techonolgy would you imrove and develop to make it as hard as possible for then?


Train as hard as you can for everything! Give your pilots as much flight time as you can afford to buy jet fuel for. Keep your troops in the field as much as possible. People are the difference in combat! History is chocked full of stories where a small group of determined and highly trained indivuals have held back much greater forces. Do a google search on "molon lave" and the story behind this Spartan phrase. Training is the reason a small group of Green Berets, Navy Seals, or Delta Force is so feared and respected.

One last thing I would advise is to get your politicians to set a goal for the military and then stay the hell out of the way!!! History also has many sories of politicians getting in the way of the military and causing a loss where there would have otherwise been victory.

About bragging:
If you claim to be the worlds best heavy weight boxer but all you did was beat up 3rd rate amateur featherweigts, then it is bragging


This wasn't my point. I was saying that we can fight and win without GPS or Link16. I was saying that even if a bomber's electronic nav instruments went out it could still hit its target. You seemed to take this as "nationalistic chest beating" when I meant it as a statement of fact.

Now about Iraq - Iran and Iraq fought for years and years and lost many lives on both sides in that war. Iran had some pretty good hardware such as US Hawk missiles and Tomcats. The US didn't like Iran for obvious reasons, so we helped Iraq. The point here is that we took out Saddam's regime and decimated his army in record time with the lowest loss of life to friendly forces that I can remember in such a campaign. Saddam had been rebuilding his military ever since the '91 cease fire. I wonder what would've happened if someone else had tried this.

About Afghanistan - We helped the side we wanted to win because the other side was harboring a terrorist leader whos group had attacked US civilians on US soil. Victory was accomplished in short order with a minimum of losses.

As far as I can tell, these were perfect engagements in that we lost as few people as possible while completing our stated objectives. A properly conducted war should be like clubbing baby seals - quick, deadly, and a minimum of risk to friendlies. Why didn't we go into Afghanistan with overwhelming force? It's the same reason a sniper uses a rifle from long distance rather than getting into a fist fight.

Never forget that the US doesn't want war. Soldiers hate war more than anyone because they're the ones getting killed. The American people come in a close second because it's our family members and friends who are the soldiers. Politicians come in a close third because they need the peoples' votes to attain and maintain power. But make no mistake, we will fight to win if the need arises.
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

Spiker

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 03:40

Unread post22 Jan 2005, 15:35

This long living topic will finally be settled on Sunday afternoon. Go Atlanta!
Offline

Amulius

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 07:53

Unread post20 Jun 2005, 07:57

My choices:

At Range: F-15C, definitely

Guns only, low altitude: F-16, definitely

Guns only, high altitude: F-15C

Up Close: F-16
Offline

WAiC

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 20:37

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 20:38

elp wrote:OK... F-16 guys.... you got to do some creative writing to get a gig like this.... :D

Cope India '04

GWALIOR AIR FORCE STATION, India (AFPN) -- As an Indian air force M-2000 Mirage waits to taxi to the runway, a U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle takes off. Both American and Indian air forces are participating in Cope India 04, a bilateral dissimilar air combat exercise. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Keith Brown)

Story here:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007001



How does the Mirage M-2000 compare to F-16 or F-15? Or is it no contest?

Thanks
Offline

WAiC

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 20:37

Unread post03 Aug 2006, 22:17

parrothead wrote:Just for clarification, I was speaking of nuclear batteries, not reactors. The US has launched several interplanetary probes with nuclear batteries on normal rockets, not the space shuttle, so heavy lift isn't really required. I just figured that with the nuclear batteries, it would be much easier to boost signal strength if that was required. I wouldn't be too worried about the satellites being detected as they'd be pretty difficult to take down.


After the paperwork is signed and dotted. Your pal the F-15 can take care of a sattalite quite easily with a little.. um never mind classified but nontheless taking down a sattalite in LEO is very easy. Thats where the GPS sats operate anyways. Geo is a bit more complicated, but can be done in less than a day with proper approval and funding.
Offline

Ayubi

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2006, 04:01

Unread post04 Aug 2006, 04:40

Comparing F-15 against F-16 is like comparing a tank to a submarine. The F-15 was built to be a air superurity fighter, the F-16 is in a different league, it was built for dogfighting. I will choose the F-15 in BVR fights, but i will choose the F-16 for a dogfight.
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post30 Aug 2006, 07:09

"taking down a sattalite in LEO is very easy. Thats where the GPS sats operate anyways."

Sorry but that is wrong. GPS birds are in Polar GEO. This ensures maximum coverage with minimum birds.
Offline

pissedpookie

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2006, 01:57

Unread post19 Sep 2006, 14:09

elp wrote:
You might want to consider the ability of the 18 "v2" F-15s up in Alaska, to be added you your exercise. They have quite the radar outfit. I am sure a lot of its ability isn't public consumption.


Funny someone should mention this. I attended an open house at Eielson a few years back and specifically asked the host F-16 pilot how he'd fare against an Elmendorf 15. He unashamedly admitted that he'd probably do very poorly. He'd thought he'd be shot down because of the differences in radar range.

Hope the anecdote helps.
Offline

blain2

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2005, 16:52

Unread post19 Sep 2006, 18:36

WAiC wrote:
elp wrote:OK... F-16 guys.... you got to do some creative writing to get a gig like this.... :D

Cope India '04

GWALIOR AIR FORCE STATION, India (AFPN) -- As an Indian air force M-2000 Mirage waits to taxi to the runway, a U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle takes off. Both American and Indian air forces are participating in Cope India 04, a bilateral dissimilar air combat exercise. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Keith Brown)

Story here:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007001



How does the Mirage M-2000 compare to F-16 or F-15? Or is it no contest?

Thanks


Look at the F-16 vs. Mirage 2000 thread.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1872.html
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest