F-16 Viper Drag Races A Dodge Viper

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Sir K - does that mean I'm vindicated from the scathing I got for saying the F15E was considered the best?

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.

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.

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 ]

[B_part]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: 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. 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.

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.

[Thoran]

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.

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by B_part: 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Sir Krustin]

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

[B_part]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: quote: Originally posted by B_part: 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.

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.
[/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.

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by B_part: 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.

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.

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),

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?

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.

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)

[B_part]

[quote]Originally posted by Sir Krustin:

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.

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.

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),

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?

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...

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.

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

...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 ]