<font color="cyan">How cool is this? Just seen this on TV!

Possibly the best fighter jet ever, the F-16 "Viper" drag races a 500HP 500lb torque 8 litre V10 Dodge Viper 2003 road car over a half mile strip.

F16 Viper - http://www.hill.af.mil/388fw/ViperWe...per%20West.jpg

Dodge Viper 2003 - http://www.spiceisle.com/glouison/Sp...er%20TR-10.jpg

At the 1/4 mile strip the car was in the lead, but marginally at the finish line the Fighter jet took it.

Was good to watch though!</font>

Since when is the F-16 called a VIPER ???????

Yea... is there a new variant? Even then I would expect it to be named after a bird since the origonal F-16's (and all the variants I'm aware of) are Falcons.

The only snake aircraft I can think of is the Attack Heli Cobra.

The official name of the F16 is the Falcon, however aircrews have nicknamed it Viper. Just like the F15 Eagle is nicknamed Rhodan, and the F14 Tomcat is nicknamed the Turkey.

[ 01-20-2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.

<font color="cyan">Thankyou for Sir Krustin for knowing informatin worth knowing.

Sorry If I wasnt specific enough, I assumed it was common knowledge that the F-16 was nicknamed Viper, especially to you Americans. Hence the "'s I gave it one time in the first post!

It's funny how 2 americans have no idea about their own worlds best Fighter Jet, but a Canadian and a Brit do!

Officially it isn't called it, but the pilots nicknamed it that.</font>

[ 01-20-2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Lavindathar ]

Actually, it's pretty easy to understand why the aircrews nickname the aircraft like this, the F16 is an exceedingly agile aircraft - it can sustain flat 360 degree turns at 450 knots. There are very few aircraft around the world that can do this.

The F15's nickname is also easy to understand - Rhodan was a very large bird in the Godzilla movies and the F15 is one of the largest fighters around.

The F14's nickname might be harder to understand, but when you know that a Tomcat has barely enough thrust to make it off the carrier deck with a full combat load it becomes a lot clearer. :D (In all fairness, I haven't seen a Navy crew call an F14 a "turkey" yet - I think it's mostly an Air Farce term)

Hehe... afraid I don't know any Air Force guys so I'd never heard the nickname... and I try to keep up on the goings on in aircraft development too. (Guess I'd better brush off my researching skills)

No offense Lavindathar, but the F16 is not considered the worlds best - at least among the jockeys I know. I would say the general wisdom considers the F15E to be the best. I'd say the Stealth Fighter runs a close second these days, but don't know for sure.

Oh, and I've heard the Tomcat called the Turkey for ages - for the very reason mentioned.

Actually TL

The F-16 is one of the most manuvrable fighters in the world. Along with the Sweedish Viggen (and it's new replacement JA-something) and the latest Sukoi fighter from Russia (model after the SU-27, may still be prototype).

The F-15 is a combo long range interdictor/light bomber like the F-14, but it is no way close to a dog fighter.

The F-117 Night Hawk (Stealth) has no buisness having the F designator, because it is an attack plane. It has ZERO air combat capability. It's air crews have called it the Wobbly Goblin, because it's just ugly - among other reasons.

Night Stalker,

While you're educating me, care to say how the F18 Hornet stacks up?

Plus, with today's (and yesterday's, considering how old they are) missiles, such as the Phoenix, how much does dogfighting really matter anymore?

<font color="cyan">I believe in the eyes of the U.S air force, they consider the F-16 to be the worlds best fighter plane.

And the F-16 and the F-15 are too different to compare, so it was a stupid comment.</font>

Well the FA-18 came from the same contract bid line as the F-16. But since the Air Force and Navy had slightly different requirements, two machines rolled off the line. It is sturdier than the F-16, but not as agile. It is currently going through upgrades.

The AIM-54 Phoenix missle is a long range weapon. In this day of joint operations and given the wide proliferation of US, French, British, and Soviet technology, long range combat is frowned upon. Even with sophisicated IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) systems, you really can not tell whether that MIG or Tornado is the enemy or that F-16 is a friend. And no, IFF transponders are not shared, they are very closely guared (until the SIGINT guys on either side cracks them).The US uses the AAMRAM which is a med range weapon. Both the French and Russians have a comprable missle, all are "fire and forget".

Also, the question you ask is the age old arms vs armor. They both evolve together. So as missile tech gets better, so does ECM (Electronic Countermeasures) (and in turn ECCM - counter countermeasures). So yes, dog fighting is a very valuable skill - even if all you are trying to do is to evade that nasty missile homing in you.

[ 01-21-2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Well.....
Sorry I cause[d] you to get your panties in a bunch.

edit: for the [d]

[ 01-21-2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

You guys are testing my memory here, but the Phoenix is used for Fleet Defense primarily isn't it? Range was 120 miles or so, and the F14 was developed as a platform for launching these beasts. Able to engage 6 targets and splash them before they could get close enough to launch Anti-ship missiles like the Exocet that nailed the Vincenze (spelled wrong and maybe the wrong name) during the Falklands. They're expensive too, which has limited their use, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them still in use today, a carrier at sea doesn't need to worry as much about friendly fire since they're a fairly stand-off platform.

F-16 is a great plane, but my personal favorite is still the A-10. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Re: The Phoenix

Allow me to address this. The Phoenix is a good longrange missile, but it was designed to intercept Bear bombers in the seventies and just doesn't do well against fighter aircraft. BTW, 120 miles range is optimistic - 75nm is probably a better estimate.

The reason it wouldn't do well against fighters has to do with the physics of how the missile travels; all of the missiles fuel is burned in the first 15 seconds of flight where it quickly accelerates to a peak velocity of mach 5 and an altitude of 100,000 feet. It's all downhill :D from there...the missile trades altitude for momentum until it gets into proximity to the target and detonates. The problem against fighters, especially at long range, is that the missile has lost so much energy by the time it gets into proximity that an experienced fighter pilot would have no trouble outmaneuvering the missile.

Bugaboos include the unusual attack profile of the missile (the missile literally falls from the sky, and a pilot could very well not notice the incoming missile until it was too late) - and the F14 has available a very good radar mode that does not trip most RWRs.

As to the relevance of dogfighting, the existance of the F22 and the Eurofighter both give credibility to the continuing viability of ACM. Both have incredible short range missile systems (the AIM-9X and the brit equivalent, can't remember the designation offhand) with "over the shoulder" launch capability and vectored thrust which gives unparralled maneuverability.

Very interesting topic, btw, I could go on for quite a while. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

EDIT> the brit system was the Python, I believe.

[ 01-21-2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

<font color="cyan">Oh, I forgot, cos I'm getting so mad.</font>

You're talking about the Su-31, it's in service I believe and Sukhoi's trying to market it. Apparently it's quite a kickass plane, a real eye-opener to western intelligence.

I wouldn't agree. The F15 is what is called an Air Superiority aircraft, this means it is meant to stand in the field of battle and reign supreme - and it does an excellent job of it. The F16 edges it out in maneuverability, but in a stand up knife-fight, the skill of the pilots involved is far more important than the slight edge in maneuverability the F16 enjoys.

Take a look at those massive engines the F15 has - it has tremendous energy available for turning and climbing; it's also faster and longer legged than the F16.

Give me an F15 against an F16 and I'll win every time.

Sir K - does that mean I'm vindicated from the scathing I got for saying the F15E was considered the best?

Oh, and those Phoenix missiles. I didn't know that about their trajectory and use of energy. However, it is my understanding that they can whip a 16G turn. Now that tells me you'd better have one damned good ECM/chaff work going on, cause no pilot can outmanuever that - physical limitations of the human form and all.

Guys, guys. Enough already. I get to see my favourite yank tank go the hard yards and all you can talk about is the jets! Oh well.

It's a commonly held view, yes. With the arrival of the F22, the Eurofighter and the as yet unsold Su-31 (not sure how many they've built, but they've been at airshows) this is becoming extremely debateable - the F15 is a seventies design like the F14 and the MLUs can only take the airframe so far.

That's at close range. The less energy the missile has the harder it is for it to turn, and the harder it turns the more energy it loses. Also, you don't have to outmaneuever the missile that hard, you just have to get out of the seeker heads field of view. Once the missile "loses sight" it will self destruct.

One thing about the Phoenix - all of the missile bodies are very old, and some are starting to develop cracks. I wouldn't expect a 100% service rate from any of them.

EDIT> Sever, why don't you start yer own thread then? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 01-22-2003, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

The problem is, there are two completely different kinds of F15:

F15C (Charlie), single seated fighter, the BEST fighter in our skies nowadays. (If you don't count the relatively few F22 Raptors)
F15E (Strike Eagle) is a double seated fighter bomber, built on the hull of the F15C, but completely different. It's role is that of deep hitting the enemy with precision strikes. Once it has jettisoned its air-to-mud payload, the Eagle can become almost as good as the Charlie.

The F16 is a fighter bomber, small and agile but inferior to the F15. The reason of its success is that its small and relatively cheap for a fighter, while being able to stand against its foreign rival, Mig 29. However it has a short range, so it's used mostly as a SAM suppressors (Shrike missiles) and vehicle hunter.

Just to confirm this, 35 out of 41 iraqi planes in the gulf war were shot down by F15s, and the number of F15s lost to enemy fighters is extremely low, that is, (1995 data)0 lost against 95 enemy fighters splashed.

The F15 is a serious Fighter. I seem to recall that they were the only planes flying CAP for the US (and Saudi's too) during Desert Storm (If you're into this sort of thing read Clanceys "Every Man a Tiger", it relates Chuck Horners experiences during Desert Shield and Storm... good read). It's truly impressive that a fighter can still be a dominant player some 30 years after it's design. (almost as impressive as the B52 [img]smile.gif[/img] ) Of course just about every system besides the airframe has been upgraded numerous times I'm sure... and her success in the Gulf had as much to do with the modern air combat strategy employed by the US and Allies, including HEAVY us of AWAC's for detection, vectoring fighters, IFF, and I'm sure LOTS of other things we don't know about.

May I ask where you're getting your information?

With the exception of the second seat and the additional systems used for ground attack (most notably the SAR radar) they are virtually identical, and if you compare the Delta (two seat trainer) with the Echo the differences are even smaller.

Almost all of the F15C's are equipped with FAST packs these days, and the Echo comes with FAST packs standard, and the MLRs for the ordnance.

Performancewise, they are interchangable in the ATA role.

Yeah, that short range is a real handicap - it has real teeth, though. The later MLUs give it AIM-120 capability.

Yeah, the Israelis achieved similar results in the many wars they fought against their arab neighbours. 40:1 kill ratios, and the one F15 they lost was due to a maneuver error.

Boy, are you flyboy nuts gonna be jealous of me next time the Chicago Air Show rolls around. The Blue Angels do flybys so close to my 13th Story lakeview window that my floor-to-ceiling windows vibrate. :D

Alright, that's it - just for that you have to break out the webcam and digitze the event for us. :D

May I ask where you're getting your information?

With the exception of the second seat and the additional systems used for ground attack (most notably the SAR radar) they are virtually identical, and if you compare the Delta (two seat trainer) with the Echo the differences are even smaller.
</font>[/QUOTE]Info comes directly from Clancy's fighter wing, which I had within reach, indirectly from other things I read here and there. Anyway the E version was redesigned (60% of the structure) to optimize it for air to ground, and its payload was increased by 6000kg, making it a bomber. Also the WSO takes much of the pilot's work in aiming the bombs.
In the ATA role the E would be even better than the C (four eyes, more thrust power), but since ground strike is a much more needed mission once air superiority is achieved, Eagles are used in that role, which means that they carry ATG bombs, leaving less space for Slammers & co, and forcing them to jettison bombs and abort mission if they want to dogfight. That's why Eagles aren't as good as fighters.

Well, I like Clancy as much as the next guy, and he mostly gets his stuff right, but he's a writer not a tech guy or a pilot.

Most of that has to do with the FAST packs, very little of the actual airframe itself is changed. The MLRs are attached to the FAST packs, not the airframe.

The Echo has the same engines as the Charlie, at least the later MLUs. Yes, four eyes are better. You seem to be contradicting yourself - is the Echo worse or better? :D

Once air superiority is achieved, the Echos don't need AIM-120s. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

The Navy has been using aircraft like this for years, and have had no trouble adapting to these limitations with the Phantom II. (which can carry a full ATA loadout in addition to the ATG load, and I'm not so sure that the Echo can't carry a full loadout of missiles as well as bombs either. I haven't got any dash-1s here right now, but I'll check later on)

[quote]Originally posted by Sir Krustin:

Quote:

Originally posted by B_part: [qb]Info comes directly from Clancy's fighter wing, which I had within reach, indirectly from other things I read here and there. Anyway the E version was redesigned (60% of the structure) to optimize it for air to ground, and its payload was increased by 6000kg, making it a bomber.

Quote:

Well, I like Clancy as much as the next guy, and he mostly gets his stuff right, but he's a writer not a tech guy or a pilot.

I know, but i don't know the numbers by heart, and had no time to search the net. the book was lying around and i opened it.

Quote:

The Echo has the same engines as the Charlie, at least the later MLUs. Yes, four eyes are better. You seem to be contradicting yourself - is the Echo worse or better? :D

Maybe I didn't explain myself - English isn't my mothertongue after all.
People in the forum were saying F15s aren't fighters, they are bombers and things like that. What i am saying is that F15s are used in two completely different roles: Charlies are mainly fighters, Eagles are mainly bombers.

As to the engines, they are different (unless in the latest produced charlies something has changed): charlies mount Two Pratt & WHITNEY F100-PW-220 (25000 pounds of thrust each), Eagles Two Pratt & WHITNEY F100-PW-229 (29000 pounds of thrust each). [http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/F_15_Eagle.html http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/Mission-history/F-15E.htm - the first "official links i found - can't find the official mcdonnell douglas site, which however said the same thing until yesterday.]

If you consider that the engines are different and there is a new seat, the airframe must have been changed. Furthermore, the new weapon systems must have required extensive redesign of the internal electric systems.
So, there are differences between the two models.

The echo, being more powerful and having 4 eyes, would be a better fighter that the charlie, but...

...you don't use Echoes as fighters - that's what I wanted to say: Eagles are used as bombers, therefore their ATA record is low - ATA engagement is an unwelcome diversion in a bombing mission (well, unwelcome for the air command, I am sure the pilot might even be pleased). Also, a charlie usually enters the battle with a full ATA load, which the eagle during a bombing mission doesn't have.

P.S. sorry for the mess with quote lines and font [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 01-24-2003, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: B_part ]