F-16 versus XYZ Discussions Becoming Rediculous?

First off, moderators, please feel free to move or delete this as I couldn't think of where else to put it.

That said, I think these discussions are becoming rediculous . The early versions of Viper vs Fulcrum, Flanker, etc were OK as we were discussing the pros and cons of each plane. Lately, the scanarios have changed signifigantly.

The new discussions seem to center more on how to beat the F-16 (usually older versions) with older inferior aircraft (example - MiG-21) or with 5 vs 2 and lots of enemy missiles. I tend to view these as a testament to the Viper's capabilities in that they must handicap the Viper.

If we're going to continue this line of topics, why not F-16s without missiles vs. Nuclear Genie armed F-101s or one F-16 with AIM-9Ds vs five F-5s armed with HOBS AIM-9X combos ???

I used to be interested in these discussions, but I'm leaning more and more towards viewing them as so many wasted electrons. In the end, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE PILOT !!!

What does everyone else think?

I agree,

you might as well get a Su 33 vs some F 86 Sabres, or a 16 vs a Ford tow truck,etc. Some things are just getting too out of line. A change in topics posted would be nice.

Good Day
Shev

I've heard this concern from a number of people, and must say I also have doubts about some of the recent "vs" topics. Perhaps someone has some suggestions for guidelines for this type of questions?

stefaan

Stefaan,

I've been thinking about this for a bit and I haven't come up with any real guidelines yet. After thinking about it, it seems to me like people are discussing tactics more that the aircraft itself. I say they're discussing tactics because they're proposing scenarios involving how many aircraft are involved and which weapons are to be employed.

Tactics are a pretty touchy subject as we're all aware. Even if the scenario only centers on older fighters, the basic tactics used probably don't change that much. With tactics being such a touchy subject, I doubt we'll get any useful info from the guys who know the truth and I don't blame them either.

Basically, I think we need to stick to the basics of discussing the aircraft themselves and thier respective loadouts and keep away from more the more specific scenarios.

Sorry guys, if I may ask, does "Four F-16s vs one F/A-22" falls under the debatable thread? Does the good responses make it any exceptional? Or because they're both Lockheed Martin made?

Pumpkin, you have a point there and I see what you're saying. I can assure you that it's not because of them both being Lockheed designs. For me, it has to do with discussing the latest and greatest and the limits (without getting into classified info) of stealth tech. It also refrained from handicapping either jet in terms of their current capabilities. It would have been different if it was "Four F-16s vs. one FA-22 without RAM or without AMRAAMs. See what I'm saying? Also, the four vs. one is actually the "normal" scenario flown in testing. One other factor in that one not being thought of might be the fact that at the time it was the only one of its kind and we hadn't seen all sorts of 2 of this type vs x of that type threads.

I know the 5 vs 2 thread was similar, but also took away the F-16's AMRAAM and AWACS support. It presupposes one Viper downed and then becomes 5 Floggers vs. 1 F-16. Maybe I'd see things differently if this was a post in the F-16 vs MiG-23 section.

This is a hypothetical scenario b/w 5 mig-23s and 2 f-16s on the european front in 1980s (NO AIM-120 AMRAAM). Lets just ignore the AWACS issue (lots of Su-15s MiG-25/31 to deal with then).

MiG has a BVR advantage over the falcon and even if 1 in 10 hits is succesful....that leaves one falcon against five floggers...

I may have gone a bit overboard in my previous posts and I'm sorry if I did. Part of my mindset is that this is a Viper site, not a MiG site and it almost seems as though by putting up these topics they're trying to tick off the Viper fans. Again, I could be wrong, but can you see why I might be getting frustrated by all these things?

I posted that 5vs2 thread.

Actually I think the comparison was pretty reasonable because in the 1980s there were no AMRAAMs.And the AWACS were high priority targets for the warsawpact.The first look first shoot adv the MiG-23 had over the F-16A/B was a problem for NATO.And the ratio of F-16s and MiG-23s on the central front was roughly 2:5

Even though they were not in the same class, in any war in Europe large numbers of these planes would have fought each other.I think it was more of a real life scenario than a simple 1vs1 with other western aircraft.
In the middle eastern battles of the syrian mig-23s against the IDAF had every possible disadvantage.

• Flogger E export versions mostly with outdated missiles.
• AWACS operated by IDAF
• No numerical superority
• A huge difference in pilot capability.

I am not saying that these differences would not be present against NATO,but the Soviet aircraft was tailored according to the requirements of their airforces and would perform much better in their designed role, than in the hands of a third world airforce.

Regards
Nathan

parrothead, I too see the point you were bringing forward.

I have very limited knowledge on the weapons and battle order near the ending of the Cold War era. I thought I will do some studies before I respond. It turns out nastle2000 has pretty much covered his case.

I just want to add, I am a fan of the F-16. I'm here to learn not only the strength but also the weakness of the Viper. I do not reject thread that might suggest the Viper having the inferior quality or less favorable position, as long as it is supported by fact. Mere passion clouds our judgement at times.

In any case, if the post is provocative, by either parties, I am certain the Forum Admin will be impartial and do the job to moderate.

regards,

Hi pumpkin,

about the Soviet air forces at the end of the coldwar, I suggest: <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/index.html" rel="nofollow">www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/index.html</a>

Be sure to look under both main airforces (VVS)and the troops of air defence(PVO) for the complete inventory.

Also: <a href="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/agency/av.htm" rel="nofollow">www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/agency/av.htm</a> and <a href="http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/nato/warsawpact.html" rel="nofollow">orbat.com/site/history/historical/nato/warsawpact.html</a>

Those are the best sources i found on the net. Some websites quote brassey that 1,216 MiG-29 were built by 1985.

My view is that these topics, though many outlandish, produce some interesting facts and discussions. As long as there are replies, in my opinion, the question was worth it.

Keep the forum, if there is a topic in the forum that starts to sound and have rediculous answers, moderators should remove it. But keep some of the topics as they are handy as I have discovered a few days ago when I was explaining something in the forum.

There is just stupid questions, that's all, no need to make big problem parrothead

KarimAbdoun wrote:There is just stupid questions, that's all,

to quote from a line, "perhaps there really aren't any stupid questions, just dumb answers.".

My concern with this type of topic is that it quickly leads into an argument of opinions (which tend to not really lead anywhere).

While there are a lot of people here with very intimate technical knowledge of the F-16 few of us (very few I would imagine) have that same level of knowledge when it comes to the opposing aircraft in these topics, be it the Su-whatever, the Rafale, the Typhoon. This leads to people claiming as fact data from 'the web', books, or 'whereever' - which just wouldn't measure up to the 'standards of accuracy' that are at least percieved on the other subject boards.

Mike

Oh, there ARE some stupid questions you can ask in life. I won't get into some of them, but that thread has gotten quite out of hand.

Next thing I know, there will be a topic "F-16 v. the alien ships from ID4". It is a little ridiculous. Handicapping the aircraft in these hypotheticals do no good, because it is an unrealistic situation.

The only time you see anything remotely like that is when an IP has to fly "Red Air", a concept that several of the kids on this site still don't seem (or perhaps, don't want) to understand.

So, yes, I think the F-16 v. XYZ board could use some heavy policing in the near future.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

TC wrote: topic "F-16 v. the alien ships from ID4".

Duh, of course the F-16 would win. By then it'll have dual conversion hyperdrive motors, AIM-9ZPSUPER's, AIM-120KILLEVERYTHINGOUTTHERE+ AMRAAM's, the APG-92^@L radar with inverse bi-polar network adaptability, and it will be the F-16ZRQ-D2, Block 1,432,564(+) designation. How could it not win?

Point being, everyone will have an opinion, some based on blind faith and a few even based on hard facts. I do agree with Parrothead; I don't go into the "XYZ" forum every time I'm on here, and if people think it is going a little to far, that is probably the easiest way to fix it- ingore the forum. As long as the webmasters and moderators want to work to monitor and keep the forum open, then those who do want to discuss the merits of their hypothetical and hadicapped air battles have a place to do it.

In the meantime, for those who do want to discuss legitamite F-16 vs. XYZ topics, maybe open a forum that focuses on the historical actions that have taken place already, where we can talk about what actually happened- discuss tactics, capabilities, circumstances, and the inevitable luck that played into the situation? Then, as soon as someone stands up and says 'well what if the -16 didn't have this and the other had this, and it was XXXXXX vs.X, then what?'- they get stopped right then. I really do think the people who are in positions to speak factually on these things, for the most part have the discipline to keep things on topic. And those who, like me, are there for the information, can police ourselves well enough to 'keep it real' so to speak.

The downside is someone standing there saying 'you can't prove that', and the other side going 'yes I can but I can't tell you why'. Weapons and tactics classification issues would hamper the forum in that manner. In addition to those out there who will argue which way is 'up' if it doesn't fit their personal opinion...

Anyway, thats just my thoughts on the issue