Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

One thing that ought to push the Falcon back up a few notches is the JHMCS sight.

Hi pals:
First of all, both aircraft were born for different tasks, the Eagle is an interceptor, the Falcon is a truly multirole fighter, more manouverable, with great speed, high climbing rate, turns into a coin, and has a lot of posibilities for A2A missiles, besides, it is smaller, easy to mantain, smaller radar echo, and cheaper

F-15 was made ever more complex than it needed to be by the stupid push to have it reach mach 2.5 therefore needing complex ramp intakes.

I'm an F-16 kind of guy, but when it comes to a dogfight, I'd rather be in an F-15C Eagle, not an F-16C Falcon, still, the F-16 is the most manuverable aircraft in the world and could make a mess out of an F-15 if it is put to the edge.

Like anything else there is no simple answer, so this could be rather long. The first reason is that the pilots work at it so damn hard. It starts at the FTU. An F-18 Top Gun graduate, flying an exchange tour in the Eagle, said he learned more about air to air at the F-15 FTU, then he did at Top Gun. The F-15 FTU has traditionally been the hardest to get through; in my class we started with 6 and ended with 4, at a time when the other FTU's were washing vitually nobody out. At one point they were having a hard time getting UPT students to select the F-15C, because they were so worried about making it through the course. The FTU attitude, by the way, was "fine, if they're that afraid, we don't want them." Once you get to an operational unit, that workload doesn't decrease. There was an IP upgrade debrief recently here at Langley that started at 2000 hours (8:00 P.M. in human time), and went till 0600 (6:00 A.M.) the next morning. Even then it wasn't finished; they just took a break to eat and grab some sleep. Oh by the way, that was just the debrief; it doesn't include the brief prep time which usually starts the day before, the brief (an hour straight of Evelyn Wood speed talking), and the actual flight. Contrast that to some air forces I've seen where the attitude is "what time is the 0900 brief?" Once everybody meanders into the brief, the highest ranking officer is automatically the flight lead with no respect to abilities, and then the debrief consists of singing Kumbaya about how well everything just went. The bottom line to all that, is that getting better at air to air requires commitment and brutal honesty; there were times as a Captain leading a four ship I told a Lt Colonel, in no uncertain terms, to sit down and shut the f**k up in my brief/debrief. There are certain cultures that don't allow for these factors, and as a result consistently do badly. My experience is that Western air forces that I've flown with (mostly NATO members) have been uniformly competetent, because they have the technical background and dedication required.

A second factor is specialization. The F-15A/C does nothing but air to air; although, this will change sooner or later (sooner actually). This allows for an incredible amount of thought about the most basic of details. The simple placement of a CAP can be, and has been, debated for hours/days. The tactics manual for the F-15A/C is the size of a large phone book, and a pilot is expected to be familiar with it all. At this point it is the only fighter left in the world doing nothing but air to air.

Third are the avionics. The F-15C has traditionally had the USAF's best avionics; it was the only aircraft in Desert Storm cleared to fire BVR without AWACS authorization. Because of those avionics it generally gets the first shot or positional advantage in the intercept. It has always gotten the newest toys (AIM-120, AIM-9X, JHMCS, AESA radar) first. You're mistaken in some of your assumptions about avionics. The F-14A/B radar was dog crap for fighter vs fighter combat. It was, no doubt, great for over water against bombers (interceptor mission), but till the F-14D it was mediocre for the fighter mission.

Fourth, is the airframe. Again using the F-14 as a comparison, the F-14A was an underpowered G-limited piece of crap; there was no doubt in my mind when I was in maneuvering fight whether the KittyKat was an A model or a B/D model; there was a significant difference in performance. The F-14A is the only jet I've gone pure on at 12.000 feet and gunned. If I had tried that on an F-15/16/18 I would have had my lunch handed to me. The public conception of the F-15's maneuverability was generated early on when it was only a 7.33G aircraft. With the OWS, the F-15 was a 9G jet, and once two 9G aircraft face each other the difference in the fight will be determined most often by pilot skill (see points one and two above) and sustained maneuverability. Sustained maneuverability, though, will take an eternity (in air combat terms) to make a difference though, so pilot skill is the more important of the two factors.

Fifth is the supporting cast. The F-15, and every other USAF fighter goes to war supported by AWACS, Rivet Joint, Compass Call, tankers, etc... All of these assets have practiced together at Flag sorties, and in the last decade in semi-combat conditions in Northern and Southern watch.

Regards,
Murph