eagleThe F-16C like the F-14A was never afforded a real opportunity for aerial combat in PGW#1. The two MiG-21’s shot down by F/A-18C’s were being chased by F-14A’s, when they ran head-on into the F/A-18’s. The USAF (AWACS) worked real hard to insure the F-15’s got first chance at any opportunity for aerial combat. I have read of other top cover pilots (Italian Tornados, French Mirages, etc.) who complained about how AWACS directed F-15’s to targets of which they were in a better position to intercept.
Exactly, it depends on tactics being used. If the Israeli only used F-15s, the result would have been the same, with the F-15 getting all the kills. That doesnt say much about aircraft capability.
So what? Many air bases have ANG F-16’s for their alert duty. The first aircraft scramble was F-15’s from the AFB near Boston. Having no precise data on where to go, the F-15 pilots headed out over the Atlantic Ocean!
Yes, but you said F-16 escorted AF1 and I replied thats because F-16s are at Andrews and Langley so its a logical choice.
F-15s from Otis didnt go to the Washington area (that were the North Dakota ANG F-16s out of Langley) but to NY.
eagleThe F-16 must have a 1:1 ratio if we consider both aircraft using the same weapons, in 1982 the kill ratio was 1:1, so basicly the F-15 has the same kill score that the F-16s had
out of the IAF’s 82 air victories 40 were achieved by F-16s. The IAF did not lose a single fighter during this engagement. This brings the IAF’s F-16s kill record to a total of 47, all achieved by the F-16A model.
:rolleyes: If you give an AK-47 to a monkey and one to Rambo, will the kill ratio be 1:1?
(note: exaggerated example, no reference to F-16/F-15 🙂 )
The 1982 ratio doesnt say anything. The result would be more or less the same with F-15 only or F-16 only.
If we take GW1, the F-16 must be crap because the ratio was 35 or so to nil. :rolleyes:
eagleDon’t forget the F-18E/F is a newer design (at least the wings) than the F-15E.
I don’t think the F-15E has any airframe upgrades over the C…which is 25+ years old.
The SHs newer wings are also the cause of several problems.
The F-15E is around 14.4 tons (without CFTs), the F-15C 13 tons, mostly thanks to structural improvements. Airframe life is 16’000 hours.
eagleNO!!! The F-15 has a difficult time with the F-16 with the F-16 winning at least half the encounters. Where the F-15 accels is where there is no support available. The fighter has to survive without AWACS or GCI, such as the Israeli F-15A’s that escorted the F-16A’s that bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor, Iraq. On 09/11/01, US Air Force #1 was initially escorted by F-16C’s. Later, they were replaced with F-15C’s. These are the sort of things you pay the extra money for when you buy a super fighter.
Any fighter has a difficult time with the F-16. But the F-16 winning half the encounters with F-15s? Im not so sure. Those are probably encounters with agressor F-16s where a ratio of 1:1 is ok. 😉
On 9/11: remember that F-16s are based at Andrews AFB plus on alert at Langley.
eagleThe Flanker should have a much higher limitation—if any. To do Kulbit or Cobra, you practically should not have any limitation at all. A little plane like the JF-17 is set at 40 deg. I’ve heard about Hornets going well over 50 deg.
You can override the limit if youre a test pilot and/or want to test the ejection seat. 😀
I dont know what the limitation for the Hornet is, but you can override it too.
How is that? The F-16s have to end up using a larger variety of wares than the F-15. For example use of Harpoons. Only F-15 that does that is the Korean ones. Many export F-16s were Harpoon capable since the mid nineties.
Well, thats for A/G stuff. From the APG-66 to the APG-68 V(8) of Block 50 there were also improvements in each variant in A/A mode.
The A-10 does not have much of a radar, does not mean it is extensively wired for optical equipment. Anything designed for A/G roles need TV channels, which not only do you use the Maverick with, but also images from FLIR and so on. The F-15 A to D does not have any TV capability with its MFDs till the Strike Eagle.
Youre probably right. Though the A-10 didnt have FLIR until recently. The Maverick seaker head acted as FLIR.
eagleThey are.
Do you have any numbers? That would be very interesting. 🙂
eagleIf the F-117 was able to show off its Aim-9 compatibility in real combat I’d vote for it.
Is the F-117 really Sidewinder capable? I think in a Tom Clancy story it uses its Sidewinder to down AWACS or something like that, but I didnt give it much credibility. 🙂
Regardless, the F-117 certainly a classic.
eagleI know that the Flanker and the Hornet are best known for their pointability. Pointability counts as much as imparting launching velocity on the misssile to give it the highest PK rates, mainly because, a missile travels best if it travels in the shortest and straightest path.
Doesnt the Flanker have the exact 35° limitation? Anyway, I dont think giving the missile a few degrees less to turn justifies the loss in speed.
Having more upgrades is not as important as the extent of the upgrades. What’s the difference of having smaller, more minute incremental upgrades performed more numerously than a few big massive overhaul type upgrades? In the end, its all the same, the final radar bears little to no resemblence from the original.
Thats true, but I wouldnt describe the F-16s upgrades as incremental compared to the F-15s.
The use of Maverick requires extensive additions to the fire control systems, starting with having a TV channel, and having to display the real time images in one of the MFD. I don’t see this being done on the F-15A to D, until the Strike Eagles. Adding TV channel support on the F-16, MiG-29 and Su-27 (changed to -30) are not easy pancakes either.
Since the A-10 with its very simple avionics is able to use the Maverick, I assumed displaying the image on the MFD (F-15 has only one) cant be that hard.
But the F-15 was never used in A/G roles so thats a theoretical thing. 🙂
eagleThe payload also includes gun ammo, chaff and flare, pilot incl. equipment, maybe oxygen supply and oil/other liquids.
Pylon weight would be interesting to know.
Fuel tanks are not that heavy, for example, the Tornados fuel tank is 75kg.
eagleShort answer: the only thing the F/A-18E/F can do better than the F-15E is land and take-off on a carrier.
The designation F/A has nothing to do with capabilities, its used because there were two seperate aircraft to be built based on the original Hornet, one Fighter (F-18) and one for attack (A-18). Electronics became small enough to design both roles into a single airframe. For unknown reasons, maybe marketing to show off its swing-role capability, the designation F/A-18 was used.
The F-15 is not carrier capable. Its at least as versatile as the Hornet but with greater range/payload and superior speed/acceleration.
crobato, the landing gear on the F-18 is completely different than the one found in the F-17. I think that was a major problem and the reason why the Hornet has such a complicated main gear today.
eagleFirst we need to see commonality was one driving factor, for example the F-15 and F-16 are powered by almost the same engines and originallly were designed to use the same powerplant, in the MiG-29 and Su-27 commonality was even more evident, the MiG-29 is a scale down Su-27 and carries the same weaponry and up to a degree avionics
Commonality is probably one reason why the F-16 was selected over the F-17, but that wasnt really a requirement. The F-15 and F-16 dont have much in common except engines. F-17 would have only shared the same gun.
eagleYet it is often demonstrated by Hornets in getting their “kill”.
I dont know how often and at what angle. Most aircraft are limited to around 35 degrees AoA and that seems to work fine.
The F-15 does not have the same radar as it once was. First the APG-70 is a new radar from the APG-63. The APG-63V1 is a complete electronic overhaul over the APG-63, and the only thing they have in common is probably the mechanical antenna. If you understand a bit of electronics design, you don’t mix old and new.
You are right. The only thing in common is the antenna and the power supply. They have added some addional modes too, thanks to increased memory. I dont know though how this affected general performance.
But I’d still say the F-16 has seen more radar upgrades.
I don’t recall the F-15A to be Maverick capable. I don’t think it ever was. Only the Strike Eagle and that was only some time later well after the plane was introduced. Even then, upgrades to the F-16s brought more options that the Eagle didn’t have until the Slam Eagle only of late.
I’m really not sure about the Mavericks. But for the F-15As A/G stores, dumb bombs, LGBs and missiles are mentioned. I assume that means Maverick.
eagle24.5tons MTOW= 10.3 empty+9.5 tons maxium external+ 4.7 tons internal fuel.
So Typhoon is in 13 ton class if we follow your logic. (see above post by esp 49129)
eagleWith high AoA a design priority now, what the F-15 has isn’t helping. A high AoA enables the aircraft to point its nose deeper inside the turning circle, even if the main body follows a different path. Although this results in a loss of energy, the pointability gives you the opportunity to make that shot.
On a stable non-fbw design, high AoA is a no-go area.
Imho, its for airshows anyway. It wasnt a design priority for most western fighters.
How extensive was those changes by the way. Adding support for Sparrows and AMRAAM looks like small potatoes for the APG-66. The greater changes was the addition of the air to ground modes for PGMs, which the APG-63 did not have until it was extensively overhauled with the APG-63V1 or replaced by the APG-70 in the Strike Eagle.
Well, the F-16 got a new radar with several upgrades, the F-15 still has the same one with MSIP upgrade. Though im not sure how much A/A performance was improved with MSIP.
Yes, but the F-16A Block 20 or MLU using the APG-66V2 or V3 has support for things like Harpoons and Mavericks.
But thats A/G stuff for upgraded F-16As. The F-15 got none of this because it wasnt needed.
I think F-15A is Maverick capable anyway.
eagleYou are wrong the Tornado is not heavier than the F-15; the Tornado`s max weight is 27986 kg while the F-15C`s max take off weight is 30844kg. the F-15E is even heavier with a max take off weight in the range of 36,741kg, it is true the Panavia Tornado should be consider a heavy weight in the class of the F-4E and the F-18E
The MiG-29 and Eurofighter have a max take off weight in the range of 22000kgs, the heavy weight are in the range of 30,000 or more such as the F-15, F-14 and Su-27.
OK, if you want to go with max. take-off weights.
I was thinking about empty weights. Max. weight isnt a typical mission configuration usually.
Sign In
