Tell me it aint true... a two-ship formation Euro Fighter tops 8 F-15

[HeyJoe]

Are they not all heading for the bone yard soon?

Air Force was planning to retire quite a few fighters, but Congress said "not so fast" and with recent SECDEF decision to defer a chunk of F-35 procurement, they'll have to stay around longer than planned unless they trade them for a Light Attack Aircraft.

 

[Fog]

Air Force was planning to retire quite a few fighters, but Congress said "not so fast" and with recent SECDEF decision to defer a chunk of F-35 procurement, they'll have to stay around longer than planned unless they trade them for a Light Attack Aircraft.

My point, if I had one, was simply that a Block 50/60 F-16 w/ an AESA radar is still a helluva Mach 2 fighter. The rest of the world is still buying F-16s, and IMHO if the AF had any sense they'd buy another 100-200 of the most capable model possible (i.e., the 30,000lb thrust engine & the AESA radar) at about $30MM/copy. The Chinese are right: the F-22 only carries 8 missiles. What are we gonna use when they launch a thousand fighters/day at us? 183 F-22s won't last long if we ever have to fight the Chinese - or the Russians.

 

[HeyJoe]

My point, if I had one, was simply that a Block 50/60 F-16 w/ an AESA radar is still a helluva Mach 2 fighter.

Agree, except for minor point that it isn't a Mach 2 fighter. It was first of that generation that was not designed to go Mach 2.

Many times, you see "Speed is Life" quoted, but IMHO speed can also be a liability in terms of design penalties and in the air. It takes a lot of gas to go mach 2 (and beyond) and you won't stay there very long unless you're a Foxbat, Foxhound or SR-71. Depending on your mission or threat you are facing, you might not want all the speed in the first place.

 

[Catmando]

My point, if I had one, was simply that a Block 50/60 F-16 w/ an AESA radar is still a helluva Mach 2 fighter. The rest of the world is still buying F-16s, and IMHO if the AF had any sense they'd buy another 100-200 of the most capable model possible (i.e., the 30,000lb thrust engine & the AESA radar) at about $30MM/copy. The Chinese are right: the F-22 only carries 8 missiles. What are we gonna use when they launch a thousand fighters/day at us? 183 F-22s won't last long if we ever have to fight the Chinese - or the Russians.

Numbers do count... and even the best fighter in the world is rendered fairly worthless when 'winchester'.

 

[HeyJoe]

Numbers do count... and even the best fighter in the world is rendered fairly worthless when 'winchester'.

Except in early 40s when Soviet Air Force adopted ramming as a tactic.

 

[Short]

Normally I'd say that China wouldn't want to endanger their economy and we have nothing to worry about, but with economists now saying that their growth is both unsustainable and artificial, and with their current gender imbalance, they might just say f' it and roll the bones on grabbing Taiwan.

 

[A4sForever]

Normally I'd say that China wouldn't want to endanger their economy .... but ... (NOW) ... they might just say f' it and roll the bones on grabbing Taiwan.

Funny you say that ... I've been predicting that ever since I've been on Air Warriors ... and before, truth be known ... but all the 'smart guys' herein poo-poo'ed it and said I was ... 'retro', in so many words ...

I love it when the 'juniors' have a 'come to Jesus' moment ...and wake up to truth, justice, and the American Way ...

 

[Fog]

Agree, except for minor point that it isn't a Mach 2 fighter. It was first of that generation that was not designed to go Mach 2.

Joe:
Unless you're talking about a centerline & a full load of bombs, the Viper is a Mach 2 fighter. And, IMHO (just like the F-18E/F is a helluva Mach 1.6 fighter) a Block 60 F-16 w/ a 30,000lb thrust engine is the best fighter buy in the world right now. It's a very good attack a/c and a great air-superiority fighter. And like the F-5G/F-20 that never got built, we could darken the sky w/ them if we had the brains to do so.

note: Actually the F110-GE-132 engine delivers 32,130lbs of thrust in full afterburner on a 21,000lb basic airframe a/c. The APG-80 AESA multimode radar does everything the radars in the F-22 & F-35 can do. The USAF/AFR/ANG has ~ 1,200 F-16s now, and I'll bet anyone on this board it never gets more than half the 1,782 F-35s now planned

 

[Flash]

And, IMHO (just like the F-18E/F is a helluva Mach 1.6 fighter) a Block 60 F-16 w/ a 30,000lb thrust engine is the best fighter buy in the world right now. It's a very good attack a/c and a great air-superiority fighter. And like the F-5G/F-20 that never got built, we could darken the sky w/ them if we had the brains to do so.

It makes very little sense to make a buy like that now with the much more capable JSF coming down the pike in just a few short years. By the time the order would get fulfilled the first USAF JSF squadron would probably IOC anyways. The USAF will have to worry about filling the gaps sooner or later for several missions, the homeland defense mission is a big one that comes to mind, and they might buy an improved F-16 or upgrade some in service already. But they don't have to worry too much about that right now since there are plenty of orders to keep the line open for a few years. But to buy warmed over old stuff when you got new stuff coming soon, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially when it has pretty much reached the limits of it's design.

 

[Catmando]

Except in early 40s when Soviet Air Force adopted ramming as a tactic.

Nice find. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the link, HJ.

I remember some bunkroom conversations back in the day on this subject. We tossed around the idea if our missiles didn't tune or we were Winchester and always without a gun, what could we do to ram an enemy, yet still survive? Obviously not much against a MiG - unless he was straight, head up his arse, and level and didn't see you - but a larger lumbering aircraft presented a target for great discussions on what to do to down or damage him.

In fact, we had some instances of Soviet Bears trying "taran" (ramming) against us. They would fly low to the water, and if an escort F-4 got under their wing, they would quickly dip that wing, trying to force the F-4 down into the water. Thousands of miles from base, they risked bending their wing if they actually hit an F-4.

Fortunately as far as I know, no F-4s were lost by this tactic, nor Bear's wings bent. But I heard of a number of close calls!

 

[A4sForever]

....Fortunately as far as I know, no F-4s were lost by this tactic, nor Bear's wings bent. But I heard of a number of close calls!

Nor A-6's or A-7's lost to Badgers in the SOJ ... BUT: after my Bombardier gave them a USA display of 'full frontal nudity', for their cameras & 'enjoyment' ... they broke off & went home ...

image by A4sForever

 

[zab1001]

That guy definitely places in the "Top 10 most obscure research paper topics."

 

[HackerF15E]

Just two points here:

One, I've fought against Eurofighters in the F-15E. They are a VERY capable platform, and in some ways more capable than the Eagle. Like everyone has said, the scenario in the link is most likely riddled with behind the scenes information that wasn't printed in the article, like the ROE, bandit cuffs, etc. I will tell you that over in the UK the RAF likes to play using "Fighting Edge", which is an agreed set of ROE in which aircraft that squawk a specific Mode 1 code are "in the game" and can randomly fight each other. The problem is, especially with Eagles at Lakenheath, that our Mode 1s are assigned using a different procedure and frequently we will squawk that code but with no intention of fighting (we'd be out of fuel if we turned-and-burned with every random jet that popped up, and we have other training to accomplish). This results in Eagles that are busy accomplishing a specific mission and random RAF jets that are rolling in behind them and doing victory rolls because they've 'shot down the Eagles'. Naturally, this ends up on PPRUNE and the next round of "we kicked the Eagles' ass" stories starts.

Two, I've fought many front-line fighters in an AT-38, armed only with a gunsight and eyeballs, and like A4s' story, I've achieved gun kills on most of them. It's very possible for nearly any aircraft to get a kill on any other aircraft on any given day, even if there are wicked imbalances in numbers and capabilities. My best was gunning a F-15C Weapons School instructor during a 2 v 2 in the AT-38...and as we merged, I was so close that I could the back of his helmet and see that he wasn't even looking my way. Ooops. "Kill Eagle, level at 14 thousand over Kawich".

So, bottom line? The story is probably true, but like an iceberg there is probably a LOT that is not being revealed in the picture we're being shown.

 

[HeyJoe]

I will tell you that over in the UK the RAF likes to play using "Fighting Edge", which is an agreed set of ROE in which aircraft that squawk a specific Mode 1 code are "in the game" and can randomly fight each other. The problem is, especially with Eagles at Lakenheath, that our Mode 1s are assigned using a different procedure and frequently we will squawk that code but with no intention of fighting (we'd be out of fuel if we turned-and-burned with every random jet that popped up, and we have other training to accomplish). This results in Eagles that are busy accomplishing a specific mission and random RAF jets that are rolling in behind them and doing victory rolls because they've 'shot down the Eagles'. Naturally, this ends up on PPRUNE and the next round of "we kicked the Eagles' ass" stories starts.

Back in early 80s, there was a carrier in the North Atlantic every fall for NATO exercises. My first one was in 82 for Northern Wedding and then in 85 for Ocean Safari in which we played in and around the UK as well as in a Fjord in Norway with NATO cleared to attack all along the way. Our RAF liaison told us we could transit over the UK if desired and dail into a common freq tellign the controller we desired to be "embellished" and they'd steer anyone squawking the appropriate Mode 1 in our direction. Conversely, we routinely put the hook down near NATO countries if we were preoccupied with another mission and couldn't play (typically due to fuel constraints). The most frustrating encounter was being on a max conserve CAP station for real world defense of the carrier East of Scotland and having F-15Cs out of the Netherland rolling in to get HUD tape and not being able to respond.

 

[HeyJoe]

That guy definitely places in the "Top 10 most obscure research paper topics."

It was relatively well-known and a sure ticket to a Gold Star (Hero of the Soviet Union).

Translation: "The ram attack is the weapon of heroes"

In World War II, ramming became a legendary technique of VVS pilots against the Luftwaffe, especially in the early days of the hostilities in the war's Eastern Front. In the first year of the war, most available Soviet machines were considerably inferior to the German ones and the taran was sometimes perceived as the only way to guarantee the destruction of the enemy. Trading an outdated fighter for a technologically advanced bomber was considered economically sound. In some cases, pilots who were heavily wounded or in damaged aircraft decided to perform a suicidal taran attack against air, ground or naval targets. In this instance, taran becomes more like an unpremeditated kamikaze attack (see Nikolai Gastello).

Nine rammings took place on the very first day of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, one within the first hour. At 0425 hours on 22 June 1941, Lieutenant I. I. Ivanov drove his Polikarpov I-16 into the tail of an invading Heinkel He 111. Ivanov didn't survive but was posthumously awarded the gold star, Hero of the Soviet Union.[5] The Soviets eventually developed tactics that gave attacking pilots at least a small chance of survival, including targeting an enemy plane's tail, rudder, and other horizontal control surfaces with their own plane's propeller. A few planes were even equipped with special steel propellers for such attacks. Lieutenant Boris Kobzan survived a record four ramming attacks in the war. Alexander Khlobystov made three. Seventeen other Soviet pilots were credited with two successful ramming attacks. About 200 taran attacks were made by Soviets between the beginning of Operation Barbarossa and the middle of 1943, when enough modern aircraft had been produced to make the tactic obsolete (even if Soviet fighter pilots were still trained to perform it). However, Evgeny Stepanov stated in an interview that more than 580 taran attacks were made by VVS pilots in WWII

*Article