The F-16 is in the news lately. Here is one loaded for bear.

[Jetronic]

Yep, they are a bit rare and expensive, and their detection range is about the same as Russia's advanced SAM systems. I also wonder how well they do with stuff like slow ground hugging drones, and the hypersonic missiles?

Must be quite the modelling process going on in Ukraine and NATO countries, on how airspace is managed with Russia having all sorts of anti aircraft systems, far too many for Ukraine to take out with its air force, even if it was much larger. And then also trying to defend against drones, cruise missiles, and hypersonics, all at the same time?

Look at the figures for detecting ground targets, you would be surprised at what ranges it can be done. A drone would be easier. Except maybe those small commercial drones that are about as big as a pigeon.

I think it's pretty "easy", anythinbg flying westward or north is russian (and pretty much anything non-drone and non ballistic will be russian aswell).

 

[Jetronic]

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.

If it comes down to plan on plane fighting, it's much more likely to be F-16 vs Su-30SM/SU-35. And I would give the edge to the Sukhois in BVR fighting against an F-16A MLU. Bigger radars with more cooling, more missiles with equal or longer range (R77-1 or R77M) and it seems more and more likely the SU-57 is actually in service over Ukraine. The latest ones have RAM coatings aswell

 

[edyvw]

If it comes down to plan on plane fighting, it's much more likely to be F-16 vs Su-30SM/SU-35. And I would give the edge to the Sukhois in BVR fighting against an F-16A MLU. Bigger radars with more cooling, more missiles with equal or longer range (R77-1 or R77M) and it seems more and more likely the SU-57 is actually in service over Ukraine. The latest ones have RAM coatings aswell

I know some Polish pilots who were flying both (German-very well-maintained) MIG-29s they bought and later F-16 Block 52 that Poland acquired.
One of my friends summed it up best: "If I wanted a joy ride, absolutely MIG29. If I wanted to finish the job, absolutely F16."

Performance on a paper is just that: performance on a paper. Before all that, first and foremost, it is maintenance and training.
I will bet my left kidney that all Russian airplanes are flying crippled with poorly maintained radars etc. Before the conflict, they were flying around 80-100 hours at best. Ukrainians, since 2014 had a program of scaling down to the best airplanes and pilots, and they were constantly flying with CA national guard. Pilot for the pilot, I would give Ukrainians an advantage. Introducing F16 means very well-maintained airplanes and the focus will still be on maintenance. Maintenance is the reason why UKR is asking F16.
The main reason why Russia never occupied Kyiv is corruption. And THAT scale of corruption cannot affect only ground troops. It goes into all pores of society or units; hence, I would give an advantage to F16MLU over any SU30 or 35.
As for SU57, very few of them are in service, and it is still a mixed bag how good they are. Russians always project power. It is all about projection, not actual power.

 

[Jetronic]

I know some Polish pilots who were flying both (German-very well-maintained) MIG-29s they bought and later F-16 Block 52 that Poland acquired.
One of my friends summed it up best: "If I wanted a joy ride, absolutely MIG29. If I wanted to finish the job, absolutely F16."

Performance on a paper is just that: performance on a paper. Before all that, first and foremost, it is maintenance and training.
I will bet my left kidney that all Russian airplanes are flying crippled with poorly maintained radars etc. Before the conflict, they were flying around 80-100 hours at best. Ukrainians, since 2014 had a program of scaling down to the best airplanes and pilots, and they were constantly flying with CA national guard. Pilot for the pilot, I would give Ukrainians an advantage. Introducing F16 means very well-maintained airplanes and the focus will still be on maintenance. Maintenance is the reason why UKR is asking F16.
The main reason why Russia never occupied Kyiv is corruption. And THAT scale of corruption cannot affect only ground troops. It goes into all pores of society or units; hence, I would give an advantage to F16MLU over any SU30 or 35.
As for SU57, very few of them are in service, and it is still a mixed bag how good they are. Russians always project power. It is all about projection, not actual power.

I agree with most except that the ukrainians have significantly more experience or training than the russians, especially on a new to them platform. The F-16 they will get are also old and should have been retired a while ago, so I would call those factors pretty even. Ukraine doesn't know corruption? It was just as bad as in Russia not long ago.

 

[y_p_w]

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.....

I’ve heard of a lot of complaints that movies like Top Gun (that needed tightly packed combatants for its visuals) left the impression that dogfighting within less than a half mile is still a thing. I’ve read that the latest Sidewinders don’t even arm in that range. Even if there is “dogfighting” (or the modern equivalent) these all aspect missiles are more a matter of who can get the first shot off (usually from miles away) and hopefully the missile doesn’t just “go dumb”.

Now I’m sure that if an F-16 can get in visual range of an F-22 it can get off a Sidewinder shot. But that would be a mistake for any F-22 pilot to allow it.

 

[edyvw]

I agree with most except that the ukrainians have significantly more experience or training than the russians, especially on a new to them platform. The F-16 they will get are also old and should have been retired a while ago, so I would call those factors pretty even. Ukraine doesn't know corruption? It was just as bad as in Russia not long ago.

Since 2014 all UKR pilots had some time in F15/16. Currently all pilots are already trained for F16. Prior to 02/24/22 CA National Guard assessment was that they would need 4 months training to move to F16. Now, probably less, as they are one with real experience. But, 4 months is some established time.

UKR since 2014 addressed some basic, extremely important aspects of its organizational structure. NCO staff was copy/past from us. In Russia, it is non existent. Corruption is, of course, present in UKR, but last decade they made huge progress on that front, and especially since invasion. It would require too much space to talk about that.
I worked with Russian military in 1997 when they were part of IFOR. It is astonishing how bad things were back then. They made progress, but going from that state of readiness, in such corrupt environment, is really hard. Failures during first day of invasion were indicative that corruption now is just more organized than in 90’s, but still thriving.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

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.

Agreed.

The most important question is not how are stuff compares to our stuff, most importantly, it is how are stuff compares to their stuff.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

I wonder if a few A-10s might be worth trying before they get retired? You would think that with no CAS from either side, that some front line units might not even be supplied with AA equipment now, as its not being used? I guess the AA missile counter measures on the A-10 just aren't good enough to risk it?

I think that the A-10 is an irreplaceable aircraft.

 

[edyvw]

I think that the A-10 is an irreplaceable aircraft.

It has been discussed here a lot. It is “one trick pony.” If you don’t own the skies, it is basically useless.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

It has been discussed here a lot. It is “one trick pony.” If you don’t own the skies, it is basically useless.

oh so I just wont bring it up at all.......

infact I suppose if I have anything to say, I should search the archives for an hour, just to see if anyone brought it up in the past.

 

[y_p_w]

oh so I just wont bring it up at all.......

infact I suppose if I have anything to say, I should search the archives for an hour, just to see if anyone brought it up in the past.

Nobody is saying you have to, but the A-10 and its extensive limitations have been discussed a lot around here. Including one poster who insisted that it would be dangerous in air-to-air combat because of its cannon.

But so far you've made some really bizarre claims, including that you think the F-16 is 5:1 cheaper than the F-15 and that having greater numbers makes up for the stealth capabilities of an F-22.

I'm not an expert on this, but there can be fun conversation. And yes I've been chided by Astro from time to time. Astro has actual combat pilot and planning experience, and he knows a lot more about this stuff than anyone else here.

And it sounds like you're a big fan of traditional dogfighting where it's about getting on an opponent's six and shooting a missile up their tailpipe or hitting it with cannon fire. I guess fighter pilots still train for it, but it doesn't sound like that's happened in actual combat for modern aircraft in decades. And your claim that dogfighting is "all about maneuverability" is not really true. A loaded down F-16 is going to be more a dog than a dogfighter. The US has been using less maneuverable aircraft successfully for years. The F-4 was not particularly maneuverable but had a ton of power and they figured out tactics to use its advantages while minimizing its disadvantages.

 

[edyvw]

oh so I just wont bring it up at all.......

infact I suppose if I have anything to say, I should search the archives for an hour, just to see if anyone brought it up in the past.

No, I am not saying that.
I am saying that it was widely discussed topic, and airplane is not what people think it is.
And yes, it is absolutely replaceable. Change is only constant in life.

 

[edyvw]

Nobody is saying you have to, but the A-10 and its extensive limitations have been discussed a lot around here. Including one poster who insisted that it would be dangerous in air-to-air combat because of its cannon.

But so far you've made some really bizarre claims, including that you think the F-16 is 5:1 cheaper than the F-15 and that having greater numbers makes up for the stealth capabilities of an F-22.

I'm not an expert on this, but there can be fun conversation. And yes I've been chided by Astro from time to time. Astro has actual combat pilot and planning experience, and he knows a lot more about this stuff than anyone else here.

And it sounds like you're a big fan of traditional dogfighting where it's about getting on an opponent's six and shooting a missile up their tailpipe or hitting it with cannon fire. I guess fighter pilots still train for it, but it doesn't sound like that's happened in actual combat for modern aircraft in decades. And your claim that dogfighting is "all about maneuverability" is not really true. A loaded down F-16 is going to be more a dog than a dogfighter. The US has been using less maneuverable aircraft successfully for years. The F-4 was not particularly maneuverable but had a ton of power and they figured out tactics to use its advantages while minimizing its disadvantages.

The problem with the: “more airplanes is better,” is that pilot is actually most expensive/precious part of an airplane. You can make another airplane, making another pilot is really, really hard.

 

[Astro14]

I think that the A-10 is an irreplaceable aircraft.

Irreplaceable for what mission?

Killing tanks when we own the skies? OK, sure. It has a big gun. More efficient at killing tanks. When there are huge columns of armor, and no enemy fighters, then I want an A-10.

What else can it do, that other airplanes cannot?

Every other weapon that the A-10 can carry can be carried by the F-16, or better, the F-15E. Faster, able to fight, able to deliver the weapon sooner to the troops in contact.

Here is a short list of what the A-10 cannot do:

1. Defend itself
2. Take off from a short field with a full weapons load
3. Climb to a medium altitude with a weapons load
4. Go fast
5. Go far

So, for Ukraine? A horrible choice. We send them A-10s, and within a week, the Russians have a dozen new aces in their pilot ranks, and the Ukrainians have no more A-10s.

It’s a sitting duck against a fighter. It flows lower, and slower, than a commercial airliner, and heres the best part: it can’t shoot back. Sure, it can carry AIM-9, but it can’t actually use them against a wily fighter pilot.

You are low and slow in your A-10. A fighter shows up, sees you on radar. You know he’s there, from your ECM, but you can’t see him, because he chooses the terms of the engagement. He stays high, fast, and kills you with a missile while you are still looking.

Please don’t bring up the tired, “A-10s have been hit by a missile and made it home.” They were hit by MANPADS. Shoulder fired. SA-7/14 or Stinger. A short range, low speed missile with a small warhead. Hit the A-10 with a real air to air weapon, with a much larger warhead, guided to a greater degree of accuracy, and it’s dead. Every time.

If you Google my username, A-10, and this site, you’ll get a lot of hits on this discussion.

Troops love the A-10, because it flies so low and slow that they can see it. But it’s not even the best CAS platform, and choosing an airplane simply because people who know nothing about airplanes love it should give one pause.

Other platforms offer equal or better payload, much better range, better speed, and can be flexed into different roles. As a mission planner, the A-10 is at the bottom of my list. As a fighter pilot, fighting an A-10 is boring. It’s an easy kill.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Irreplaceable for what mission?

Killing tanks when we own the skies? OK, sure. It has a big gun. More efficient at killing tanks. When there are huge columns of armor, and no enemy fighters, then I want an A-10.

What else can it do, that other airplanes cannot?

Every other weapon that the A-10 can carry can be carried by the F-16, or better, the F-15E. Faster, able to fight, able to deliver the weapon sooner to the troops in contact.

Here is a short list of what the A-10 cannot do:

1. Defend itself
2. Take off from a short field with a full weapons load
3. Climb to a medium altitude with a weapons load
4. Go fast
5. Go far

So, for Ukraine? A horrible choice. We send them A-10s, and within a week, the Russians have a dozen new aces in their pilot ranks, and the Ukrainians have no more A-10s.

It’s a sitting duck against a fighter. It flows lower, and slower, than a commercial airliner, and heres the best part: it can’t shoot back. Sure, it can carry AIM-9, but it can’t actually use them against a wily fighter pilot.

You are low and slow in your A-10. A fighter shows up, sees you on radar. You know he’s there, from your ECM, but you can’t see him, because he chooses the terms of the engagement. He stays high, fast, and kills you with a missile while you are still looking.

Please don’t bring up the tired, “A-10s have been hit by a missile and made it home.” They were hit by MANPADS. Shoulder fired. SA-7/14 or Stinger. A short range, low speed missile with a small warhead. Hit the A-10 with a real air to air weapon, with a much larger warhead, guided to a greater degree of accuracy, and it’s dead. Every time.

If you Google my username, A-10, and this site, you’ll get a lot of hits on this discussion.

Troops love the A-10, because it flies so low and slow that they can see it. But it’s not even the best CAS platform, and choosing an airplane simply because people who know nothing about airplanes love it should give one pause.

Other platforms offer equal or better payload, much better range, better speed, and can be flexed into different roles. As a mission planner, the A-10 is at the bottom of my list. As a fighter pilot, fighting an A-10 is boring. It’s an easy kill.

So I am to assume you are a fighter pilot, or were one?

We are getting way off topic BTW, probably my fault, but would like to continue this discussion perhaps in PM.

 

[Astro14]

So I am to assume you are a fighter pilot, or were one?

We are getting way off topic BTW, probably my fault, but would like to continue this discussion perhaps in PM.

I was a Navy fighter pilot. Flew the F-14, primarily, though I was qualified in the F/A-18 as well.

I talked a lot about my jet and my time flying it in this thread: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/f-14-questions-answered-ask-away.191767/

As an aside, I posted a picture of me and the lovely Mrs. Astro in the member picture thread a while back. Except for being quite a bit taller, I think I’m a lot like “Maverick”…

Post in thread 'Veterans photos'
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/veterans-photos.337221/post-5669599

If you’d like to discuss the A-10, let’s resurrect this thread:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...underbolt-ii-tank-buster.338612/#post-5703976

I‘ve found that lots of members have an interest in the discussion. Better to let them participate than just go PM, I think.

 

[y_p_w]

As an aside, I posted a picture of me and the lovely Mrs. Astro in the member picture thread a while back. Except for being quite a bit taller, I think I’m a lot like “Maverick”…

Post in thread 'Veterans photos'
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/veterans-photos.337221/post-5669599

Very nice. I don't recall you ever discussed the meaning behind your callsign, although I understand that often it's not really suitable for a polite discussion.

 

[Dave Hess]

When will Ukraine get their F-16s ?

 

[Astro14]

Very nice. I don't recall you ever discussed the meaning behind your callsign, although I understand that often it's not really suitable for a polite discussion.

Well, I think it’s clear, don’t you?

The resemblance is truly uncanny…

Also, I majored in Astrophysics, a fact I had kept quiet, but which was discovered in my first F-14 squadron. The guy giving the radar theory lecture had seen my college transcript, and started calling me “Astro” right then and there. It stuck.

 

[y_p_w]

Well, I think it’s clear, don’t you?

The resemblance is truly uncanny…

View attachment 162759
Also, I majored in Astrophysics, a fact I had kept quiet, but which was discovered in my first F-14 squadron. The guy giving the radar theory lecture had seen my college transcript, and started calling me “Astro” right then and there. It stuck.

OK. Doesn’t sound like it’s embarrassing or even borderline obscene like for some. Thanks.