Nah. Mine is quite tame compared with many.
The Jetson’s dog (who was called Tralfaz before George adopted him) pretty much cemented it.
The F-16 is in the news lately. Here is one loaded for bear.
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
- Status
The Jetson’s dog (who was called Tralfaz before George adopted him) pretty much cemented it.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
I dont think they should get a bootlace from us, but that is just my extremist opinion.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Really? Why?
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
Because I am not a globalist
Folks, let’s not go down that road. Globalism. Support for Ukraine, etc.
They are intrinsically political lines of discussion.
Let’s stick to airplanes. Their employment. Relative merits in the current battlefield environment.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
correction, F-16 vs F-22, not F-15, mistake in typing
in a vacuum, no, in a war with an opposing military with like capabilities, yes
obviously, I am not comparing an A-10 to an F-22, never did
not really, but a "fan" of warfare in general and what it takes to win, also from Las Vegas and like to make a calculated bet
The new price of an F-22 was about double that of an F-16.
In a war with like capabilities, there really are no like capabilities. Only the US and its allies have anything with the kind of stealth that the F-22 and F-16 have. In addition, the US has F-16s, F-14s, F/A-18s, electronic warfare, AWACS, tankers, etc. They would never be silly to think that it's single-combat. They works as a team.
And Astro mentioned the weaknesses of the F-16. It's often used for air to ground where it's going to be heavily weighed down and range is going to be abysmal. You seem to think maneuverability is going to overcome all the assorted advantages that stealth and powerful radars are going to provide.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
https://militarymachine.com/most-expensive-military-jets/
#23, $29.1 million
#1, $152
no, but cost would
and we have not even got to the legendary F-15 yet
@Astro14
different source.......
https://aerocorner.com/comparison/f-22-raptor-vs-f-16-fighting-falcon/
Can you explain the difference in payload capacity?
Is this accurate?
Why is the payload carrying capacity so much greater in the F-16?
Just wondering, what happens to the F-22 when the doors open to drop the 2 bombs it can carry internally? Does radar work when the doors are open?
Does stealth negate heat seeking technologies of today?
Does stealth negate visual target aquisition systems of today?
A video comparing all the options for airplanes available for Ukraine, and discussing the weapons and capabilities the F-16 would bring.
Doesn't look very good short term as mentioned above
That’s not what a new F-16 costs with parts and support contracts.
The long awaited order contracting of modernised F-16 Fighting Falcon fourth generation fighter jets for the Royal Jordanian Air Force was confirmed on January 19, and has been at the centre of major controversy since due to the extraordinarily high price being paid for the aircraft. Twelve F-16s, a lightweight multirole fighter class that first entered service in 1978, are being acquired for $4.21 billion - meaning each airframe and its associated weaponry, spare parts and maintenance equipment will set the Jordanian defence budget back a little over $350 million. The cost has been considered extortionately high not only when compared to other purchases of F-16s in the same Block 70/72 configuration abroad, but also compared to much higher end and more modern fighter classes, with the F-16 being marketed as a low cost aircraft for clients unable to afford its new fifth generation successor the F-35. Taiwan, for example, in 2019 contracted 66 F-16 Block 70/72 airframes under an $8.1 billion contract - meaning it paid $125 million per airframe or just over one third as much per airframe as Jordan did for the very same aircraft. The cost of the Taiwanese acquisition was itself seen as unusually high and controversial both domestically and abroad due to the F-16’s age, weight range and limited capabilities.
And the payload is correct. An F-22 is primarily for air to air, although it can apparently carry two laser guided bombs. Why anyone would want to do that is another matter. It’s typically going to be loaded with two Sidewinders and six AMRAAMs.
It’s not that hard to understand. An F-22 or F-35 might turn on its radar long enough to locate a target, the weapons bay opens, and in a few seconds the weapons bay closes after shooting off a missile. That’s basically what the F-117 did with its two bomb load. But why would an F-22 be carrying bombs? But in any case, it’s only for a short time. Or better yet it’s got buddies like F-15s that have their radars on. Plus AESA radar is harder to detect.
Newer infrared guidance isn’t really heat seeking. It’s really more imaging. Very hard to spoof with flares. But it’s not as effective as radar. If it’s gotten to the point where an F-22 pilot is within infrared missile range of a target, the pilot messed up badly.
There are some really specious figures in that comparison. A new F-16 is closer to $60 million. Edit: read the post above, it’s even more, so I really don’t know where they’re getting $18 million from. Maybe when the airplane was brand new…in 1976…
The best fighter in the world, bar the F-22, is the F-15. It has an actual combat record of 100 kills and zero losses. F-16 guys like to say they can beat it, and in a certain set of initial conditions, perhaps they can, but the thing is that the real world isn’t like the training scenarios - and the Eagle just keeps coming out on top again and again against every other fighter out there. In actual combat.
But, talk to an F-22 driver, who was likely an F-15 driver before, and the difference between the two is laughable. The Raptor kills Eagles with ease. Faster. Better climb. Better turn. Better post stall maneuver. Stealth.
The payload comparison is somewhat specious as well. The Raptor was built for one thing - Air Dominance. It carries all it weapons internally to preserve stealth.
The F-16 can hang a bunch of stuff under its wings, but I talked about that in an earlier post. It turns the airplane into a dog. Requiring a long runway for takeoff, limiting speed, killing its turn performance, and guzzling fuel. All that payload turns a short range fighter into a really short range pig. That payload number is an airplane salesman’s wet dream.
Stealth is in the radar spectrum. It doesn’t hide heat, not all of it. But look at the Raptor. The engines are buried and the nozzles are shielded. It doesn’t use AB to cruise at supersonic speed. Much of the heat is hidden and it generates far less heat than, say, an F-16 going supersonic - which is using AB and has the engine plume visible for all to see. When Lockheed designed the airplane, they were thinking about this. They dramatically reduced the IR signature of the Raptor over conventional fighter aircraft.
An IR/visual track is an azimuth and elevation only. You don’t know target range. So, knowing that a Raptor is there from a brief heat or visual signature isn’t the same as being able to fight it. He’s going to kill you before you ever get to an IR missile envelope, even if you can see his IR with an IRST, like the F-14D or MiG-29 had. IR isn’t a magic dot either. Atmospherics, particularly water vapor, attenuate IR. You can’t always get an IR track on an airplane, especially if the engines are cooler…. So,,maybe you see him, maybe you don’t, and even if you do, it doesn’t provide a range, speed, or the ability for you to shoot.
As far as door opening during weapon launch? Yeah, that compromises stealth, for under a second. It makes no difference. Your radar doesn’t have enough time to process the return before it disappears again. No track. No range. Nothing. Why do you think they designed the doors to open and then close in under a second? Again, Lockheed engineers thought about this.
If you’re talking about acquiring the airplane visually, that happens at close range. Electro-optics, like the F-14 TCS, need a radar track to acquire. It’s basic physics - if I magnify, then I have a narrow field of view, and while I can see far and detect small objects, I can’t scan the whole sky that way. I need to be able to point with precision to detect. Which means a radar track…which the stealth denies you…
Let me add that you can’t just shoot a missile at something without knowing its range, tracking rate, and closure rate. The missile itself needs a track on which to guide and it needs to be employed within the kinematic envelope. Without a track - it comes off the rail “stupid” - and fails to guide on anything.
So, if you don’t have a track (stealth) or you don’t know range (EO-only track) your missile is useless. You don’t have a shot, literally.
I get that it sounds nice, but how relevant is it going to be with medium-range missiles? It sounds like fighter pilots spend an inordinate amount of time training for basic fighter maneuvers when most likely it's going to be about who gets off a medium-range missile first from a long distance away. Or even who gets off a short-range missile first.
ROE drives the nature of the fight.
The Raptor will always get the missile shot first. Equal missiles will have different ranges when launched from different altitudes and speeds. Since the F-22 will be higher and faster than the target, even if the target had the exact same missiles, and even if the target could see the Raptor, the Raptor shoots first.
Since the target can’t see the Raptor. The Raptor shoots first, of course.
We spend a lot of time training a variety of engagements and a variety of skills. What good is your game if your drive is awesome but you can’t putt?
The Raptor wins the close in fight by getting a weapon solution first through superior turn performance and maneuverability. Of course they train for that. Your short game has to be good, too.
Look, in 1962 Mcdonnell-Douglas sold, and the Navy bought, the idea that dogfights and short range engagements were over with the all weather, all aspect, missile capability of the F4 phantom. Actual combat proved that idea wrong. There are scenarios (ROE drives visual identification, a single fighter manages to sneak into the fight while his wingmen absorb all the shots and die, etc.) in which a fighter could get an a turning (BFM) fight with a Raptor. And the Raptor has all the advantages in that arena.
But that’s what is so impressive about that airplane, it was built to dominate in every single way. It isn’t just a high altitude missile truck. It’s a BFM machine with thrust vector and killer turn performance.
Unless the other fighter is unseen, or the Raptor driver makes a mistake, the Raptor gets off the first short range shot. It also has a gun, so, if it gets to gun range, the Raptor is again, holding all the cards. It maneuvers post stall with thrust vector and gets the gun on target first.
Understood. There's been reporting of incidents where positive visual identification was a requirement before firing at an enemy. And I suppose "short range" is all relative. I've heard that could still be 5-10 miles away.
No argument here. A lot of times, the rules of engagement (ROE) are written by JAG lawyers and driven by political concerns from the highest level.
It is rare that they are written by actual fighter pilots, or the people who are getting shot at in those situations.
VID Requires you to get well within the missile range of a potential adversary and see them visually, to determine the aircraft type, before you can shoot. This is actually where electrooptics sensors, the television camera on the F-14, for example, are hugely important. 10x Power magnification allows you the actual VID that much farther out than actual eyeball range.
So you can make your shoot decision that much sooner.
Using any fighter to VID another fighter puts that airplane at a huge disadvantage. We accept risk in some scenarios in order to accomplish VID.
For example, without getting specific on the nature of my intercepts, I intercepted dozens of airplanes during desert storm. The risk of blue on blue was far higher, and a far more important concern, than my tactical vulnerability in accomplishing a VID intercept.
They were all friendly aircraft. VID was the right call in that environment.
Makes more sense. I'm thinking a lot of rules of engagement came from the USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655, although obviously a cruiser can't get close to an aircraft. Although there was a lot more that went wrong there.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
1000% agreed, in the limits of my knowledge.
Understand, I have never said that the F-16 is superior in general, because that is obviously not the case. But "best" in my mind must be proven, and until the combination of Raptor and pilot, go up against are real adversary, My vote goes to the Eagle.
Just a question to your expertise:
"rookie" in a Raptor or "ace" in the Eagle, which wins?
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
So that good huh? Wow.
- Status
