- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
Overall, I think the F-16 is the multi-role aircraft in the world.
The F-16 is in the news lately. Here is one loaded for bear.
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
- Status
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
For most countries it is absolutely best choice.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
I would argue, for us (USA), as it pertains to readiness, it is most superior.
Sure the F-15 or the failed F-22 ,,,,,bird for bird is better, but you can built 5 of these for the price of one F-15. And I dont care how much tech you have, 5 on 1 is not good odds.
So, for readiness for a real war, where manufacture is king, my vote is for the F-16.
Perhaps.
The F-22 has demonstrated, over and over, that 4th gen fighters die when they face the Raptor.
E.G. 10 F-16s v. 2 Raptors - all the F-16s die. Over and over. Every time. Sometimes, a Viper will get lucky, but it’s rare.
The F-16 has rather modest range, compared with the F-15 long range, and the Raptor very long, and super cruise, range.
So, there are many mission profiles that the F-16 simply cannot fly. It doesn’t fit every mission.
Don’t kid yourself, the F-22 isn’t a failure. It’s expensive, but it is an incredible airplane, and much of its capability remains classified.
Going up against one in an F-16 is like being in a gunfight, where the other guy has a gun, and you only have a knife.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
F16 Block72 or even less capable ones are still best bang for a buck.
But, as I said, for the most countries. The US does not fit that description. We are the only superpower, we are superpower “on the cheap.” While our defense budget is huge when looking dollar amount, it is actually insane that that dollar amount comes from only 3.7% of GDP. So, the US can and should push for airplanes like F22/35. F22 is absolutely not failure. It was caught in political bickering, somehow rightly so bcs. Lockheed wasn’t really the most transparent and trustworthy partner. But, it is huge qualitative advantage that no one still can match and we are talking technology that is 20yrs old.
But, other countries have different priorities. I am afraid that F35 will become bitter pill for a lot of small European countries. They want it now bcs. Russia, but in the long term it might become political issue bcs. cost.
Croatia is best example. They bought Rafale bcs. politics. Nothing else! I have a lot of friends there at the top positions in their Air Force and their justification or making themselves feel better is FOD. But it is ridiculous and they know it. Rafale is insanely expensive to maintain and operate. Last year Croatia had 1 ( ONE) new cadet at their academy! They have huge brain drain, population is declining, and economy is anemic in general for last two decades due to over reliance on tourism. So, they bought Radale bcs. offset, French trying to push their product under any circumstances and Americans having in general hot/cold relations due to wider issues in the Balkans that involves Croatia.
So, they will fly Rafale. But, how much they will fly? My best guess (and I have view into their Air Force) is 30-40hrs a year. Ask @Astro14 how dangerous is that.
Other countries in Europe will face similar challenges with F35.
F16 would allow them much more air time and most countries there use air force for air policing, regional deterrence etc. Nothing like we do.
This data about missiles etc. is all good, but kind of sideshow in larger picture.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
agreed on that point 100%
Not quite sure on that, in the air yes, at sea maybe, on the ground, no. What made our country a superpower was our ability to manufacture everything better, faster than the other guy, today do you really think we could out manufacture China? Or India? Or Russia?
agreed, training is most important
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Definition of superpower is not military one. Military is symptom. You can’t have strong military if you don’t have strong education, economy etc.
And yes, we are absolutely ahead of India and China. Russia is, as John McCain said “gas station pretending to be a country,” or as Obama more academically said, “a regional power.” They are nuclear power, but ABSOLUTELY not a superpower. Take into consideration that California alone has economy substantially larger than Russian.
China has one basic problem: it is not democracy! Non-democracies are not very good in innovation. You can have numbers, but to be a superpower, you must be first in innovation. Authoritarian regimes are really bad in innovating. They are always afraid of that, hence, China becoming more authoritarian under Xi. Best example is Soviet space program. It worked a little. It had that initial boom bcs. Sergei Korolev was absolutely brilliant scientist. But when he died, basically KGB took over program. You can’t innovate under threat of a gun or Gulag.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
Kind of like comparing a McLaren F1 to a Corvette, great car, but for a fraction of the price, you could buy a Corvette, LEARN to drive it, wreck it, and buy a new one, several times.
neither does the F-22
My remark is not solely based on the airplane. Sure the F-22's published feats are great, but you also must account for justification by the developers and brass who have to show results to the taxpayers. My opinion is based on the fact that you could easily manufacture fleets of F-16's where the F-22, no way. I was not flyboy, but I would assume that the published wins of the F-22 over all comers, has something to do with stealth and tech, because the F-16 is still the most maneuverable fighter we have, and dogfighting is all maneuverability. In addition, the F-16 can carry much more armament than the F-22.
Is the F-22 a better aircraft on paper? 1000% yes. Is it a better tool for war, maybe not.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
ok, but what i am saying is.....are we really that much ahead?
disagreed, by in large, discipline is the deciding factor, and that is not found commonly in our country
Many people think that we, the USA, were the great "winner" of WW2, and to a point that is true. But the reason was manufacturing, both in our part and Russia's. Sure the Tiger was the best tank on the field, but they still lost to the Russians, why? Becuase for every one Tigers there were 10 T-34's
A joke amongst Astronauts:
"If you want to be an Astronaut kid.......learn to speak Russian"
Why is that?
For the last 15 years or so, the vast vast majority of freight and personnel sent into space for the ISS, was from KAZ, on Soyuz rockets which have remained largely unchanged for decades.
Worked a little? Huge understatement.
These days, if it comes down to a turning dogfight, then the pilot really messed up. Even in what might be considered a "dogfight" today (certainly not like a WWII guns fight trying to get behind the opponent) I understand that the latest versions of the Sidewinder can be fired at a target behind the pilot.
Your definition of "dogfight" is WWII era. That's not anything like how modern combat works. I guess it's all fun when they have rules-based challenges in DCS where they're not allowed to use BVR missiles, but that ain't real.
Last edited:
My grandfather ended his USAF career flying the F-16s. It was, by far, his favorite jet to fly. He has some wild stories and HUD footage from his time in the cockpit. It's an incredible platform, but for it's capabilities/flexibility, but also it's low production price point.
It is absolutely a better tool for war.
The Raptor is as far above the F-16 as the Garand is above the medieval sword.
It’s late, and I don’t have time to dispel your mistaken assumptions one by one.
But your opinion is predicated on false assumptions about tactics, war, fighter employment, and, yeah, dogfighting.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
I really don’t want to go into some ridiculous discussion.
1. The US help to USSR during WWII amounted to $180bln in today’s money. Fuel, machinery, vehicles, ships, engines etc. etc. Ask yourself: what Russia makes today?
2. We would have engines for space program if we kept Saturn V. But we didn’t. We had Space Shuttle, something no other nation achieved. Then we shut it down! Why? Bcs. we can. Bcs. Space X is coming, Orion etc.
Russian option had two primary goals: stop gap until our programs replace Space Shuttle, and keeping Russians in the game. Russian space program is dead without our money. It is important to keep Russia as viable country bcs. 5,400 nuclear warheads, bcs. it is largest country in the world and can cause problems. They choose to cause problems and they are having problems fighting country whose defense budget in 2022 was smaller than budget of NYPD.
By the way, Stalin killed designer of T34. Bcs. T34 came out of initially joint program between Germany (Tiger) and Russia (T34). Stalin didn’t trust him (dictator) and said: if it is so good, why don’t you drive it to Finish border and back to prove it. Bcs. it was Stalin, designer was afraid to tell him that it is pre production model and didn’t have heat. It was winter. He died from pneumonia.
Since then, all Russian tanks are basically of same design.
Last edited:
I don't know where you're getting these bizarre ideas of how much these aircraft cost and what's meaningful. A new F-16 is more than $60-70 million while a new F-15EX is going for about $80-90 million. But it's only an approximate price because they're usually sold as packages with parts and maintenance.
I'm not going to trash the F-16, because it's very good for its specific purposes, but you seem more like a fanboy with incorrect assumptions of what really matters.
Look, the F-16 is the prefect choice for Ukraine. For logistics and political reasons. It’s a great airplane.
But in an air to air conflict against an F-22? First, the F-22 is more maneuverable than the F-16. Second, the F-16 gets killed before they ever see the Raptor.
So, let’s talk stealth for a second. Stealth means you can’t see the airplane with your radar. You don’t know where the airplane is, and he kills you at, let’s call it 40 miles (AMRAAM). You blow up before you ever saw him. Your maneuvering ability meant nothing. It was never a maneuvering fight.
You have a revolver. Loaded with six rounds. You go up against a guy with a rifle, loaded with 10 rounds. Except that it’s on a pitch black night, you don’t have a light, and the other guy has NVGs. That’s the F-16 against the Raptor. Might get a lucky shot, maybe, if the Raptor makes a mistake.
The Raptor has “supercruise”. It stays supersonic without AB. The F-16 has to use AB to go supersonic. The Raptor has a lot more fuel. The F-16 can’t sustain that speed for more than a few minutes, but the Raptor can do it for hours. So, the Raptor chooses where and when the fight takes place. Back to our analogy, the other guy is allowed to sprint, and run, at night, as much as he wants, while wearing NVGs. You can only walk. And you can’t walk far.
The maneuvering fight is when you go from shooting guns to wrestling in our analogy.
You’re strong, and you hope the other guy doesn’t kill you with a long range rifle shot, you’re hoping to get into a wrestling match. You’re hoping for a brilliant bit of luck, where the other guy allows you to get close, even though you can’t see him and he can see you.
And then, you find out that the other guy is also stronger than you. He chose to wrestle you instead of shoot you from far away because it’s fun, and he crushes you. Maybe he did make a mistake, and he was busy killing a bunch of your wingmen, when you get to wrestling range. He still crushes you. He’s better at the maneuvering game than you are.
In air to air exercises, the Raptors crush everything. Over and over. They can be outnumbered 10 to 1, and kill most of the other fighters, the leave when they run out of weapons before the other fighters ever see them.
But in an air to air conflict against an F-22? First, the F-22 is more maneuverable than the F-16. Second, the F-16 gets killed before they ever see the Raptor.
So, let’s talk stealth for a second. Stealth means you can’t see the airplane with your radar. You don’t know where the airplane is, and he kills you at, let’s call it 40 miles (AMRAAM). You blow up before you ever saw him. Your maneuvering ability meant nothing. It was never a maneuvering fight.
You have a revolver. Loaded with six rounds. You go up against a guy with a rifle, loaded with 10 rounds. Except that it’s on a pitch black night, you don’t have a light, and the other guy has NVGs. That’s the F-16 against the Raptor. Might get a lucky shot, maybe, if the Raptor makes a mistake.
The Raptor has “supercruise”. It stays supersonic without AB. The F-16 has to use AB to go supersonic. The Raptor has a lot more fuel. The F-16 can’t sustain that speed for more than a few minutes, but the Raptor can do it for hours. So, the Raptor chooses where and when the fight takes place. Back to our analogy, the other guy is allowed to sprint, and run, at night, as much as he wants, while wearing NVGs. You can only walk. And you can’t walk far.
The maneuvering fight is when you go from shooting guns to wrestling in our analogy.
You’re strong, and you hope the other guy doesn’t kill you with a long range rifle shot, you’re hoping to get into a wrestling match. You’re hoping for a brilliant bit of luck, where the other guy allows you to get close, even though you can’t see him and he can see you.
And then, you find out that the other guy is also stronger than you. He chose to wrestle you instead of shoot you from far away because it’s fun, and he crushes you. Maybe he did make a mistake, and he was busy killing a bunch of your wingmen, when you get to wrestling range. He still crushes you. He’s better at the maneuvering game than you are.
In air to air exercises, the Raptors crush everything. Over and over. They can be outnumbered 10 to 1, and kill most of the other fighters, the leave when they run out of weapons before the other fighters ever see them.
Well that about sums it up.
My friend, retired F-16/F-22 pilot, when I asked a few years back, described going up against an F-22 this way:
(I'm paraphrasing... any time he and I talk, there is usually lots of beer and expletives involved)
Anyone unfortunate enough to get into a fight with an F-22 is only going to know he even participated in that fight because the back end of his jet just blew up, and if he survived that he'll be under a canopy with a bloody nose and multiple broken bones watching whats left of his plane plummet to the ground while trying to figure out what the hell just happened. Meanwhile I'm 30 miles behind him, now traveling in the opposite direction at 800 kts, and he didnt even know I was ever there.
My friend, retired F-16/F-22 pilot, when I asked a few years back, described going up against an F-22 this way:
(I'm paraphrasing... any time he and I talk, there is usually lots of beer and expletives involved)
Anyone unfortunate enough to get into a fight with an F-22 is only going to know he even participated in that fight because the back end of his jet just blew up, and if he survived that he'll be under a canopy with a bloody nose and multiple broken bones watching whats left of his plane plummet to the ground while trying to figure out what the hell just happened. Meanwhile I'm 30 miles behind him, now traveling in the opposite direction at 800 kts, and he didnt even know I was ever there.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
has nothing to do with what I said, thanks
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 805
weapons, not the plane
It is absolutely the plane.
The F-16 and F-22 carry the same weapons.
The F-22 is better able to use them. Sensor range and capability matters in missile employment. Launch parameters matter. You can’t shoot what you can’t see, so, the F-16 is hosed. Further, if the missile has to go up hill then it is losing energy, and the range is shortened, conversely, if you’re shooting down at a target, the missile has better range.
For a capable, effective, multi-role, and affordable, fighter, the F-16 is hard to beat. But that’s like saying you can’t beat a Corolla, well, sure you can! Spend a bit more, get a lot more performance. In the case of the Raptor, the performance difference is incredible.
The only relevant question: how will the F-16 do against the Mi-29?
They‘re fairly well matched in terms of performance: turn rate, turn radius, climb rate, range, speed. They both have good weapons.
It will come down to tactics and who is driving.
Back to the F-22 discussion, our best guys flying F-16s get killed every time they go up against a Raptor. 8 F-16s vs. two Raptors, the F-16s all get killed without ever seeing the Raptors. It’s not a matter of tactics. There are no tactics that make up for the inability to see the Raptor. It really is like a rifle against a sword, or two guys where one can see and one can’t.
Last edited:
You're incorrect, and missing his (specifically my friend's, but from the looks of it, also Astro's) point. Bad guy's plane isnt smart enough and doesnt have the electronic eyeballs to tell bad guy pilot that the F-22 was even back there stalking him. You're thinking in the wrong era. His point was, there is no dogfight with an F-22. He kills you before you even know he's there. He can kill multiple bad guys at the same time without any of them knowing he was there. He'd have to be drunk or too busy texting his girlfriend cockpit selfies to let you in close enough to engage him in some Top Gun movie/WWII era cat and mouse chase, and even if he did you'd be on a suicide mission to continue the fight. An F-16 cannot and will not outrun or outmaneuver an F-22. I think Astro did a fine job explaining this up a couple posts, he kind of has a bit of real life experience in this field.....
- Status
