F-16 technologic information
- Thread starter Death6
- Start date
The Technology Gap is the Biggest Diffrence and the requirments of that time.. F-16 was devlop in Late 70 for the purpose of medium size plane for 25 years of life know the things are diffrently change every thing must be multipurpose, your are comparing F-16 with other two engine aircrafts. this is the basic diffrence tooo 
I thought F16 first tested in Feb, 1974 and F18 first tested in 1978
Correct me if I am wrong, the difference between F16 and F18 is
F16 is lighter, having a lower cost for maintenance
F18 is heavier, having a higher cost for maintenance, and also a higher performance. F18 is mainly for carriers
I think F16 will probably remain in the arsenal for another 15 or 20 years.
If you are talking about F16A vs F18E/F, that's a Technology Gap
Still waiting experts:unknown
The F/A-18 Hornet was developed from Northrop's unsuccessful LWF competitor, the YF-17 ... which lost to the YF-16. At the time, the 16 far out performed the 17.
The Navy has a history of distrusting single engine jets (justifiably in my opinion) and rejected a navalized F-16 for McDac's converted F/A-18 with twin engines and far better weapons capability. The Hornet is slightly bigger and heavier, exactly what the Navy wanted. It is also slower on the top end, but has similar mid range acceleration.
Navy pilots tend to be an egotistical lot (again, justified in my opinion), but the Hornet pilots I've talked to (used to be an engineer at a Navy Aviation Depot) all said they had the F-16's number in a dogfight. F/A-18's have swept the sky of Russian built Mig-29's, but then again the German Air Force has dumped virtually all of their Mig-29's because the F-16's far outclass them.
Probably more than you wanted to know, my apologies for running on.
The Navy has a history of distrusting single engine jets (justifiably in my opinion) and rejected a navalized F-16 for McDac's converted F/A-18 with twin engines and far better weapons capability. The Hornet is slightly bigger and heavier, exactly what the Navy wanted. It is also slower on the top end, but has similar mid range acceleration.
Navy pilots tend to be an egotistical lot (again, justified in my opinion), but the Hornet pilots I've talked to (used to be an engineer at a Navy Aviation Depot) all said they had the F-16's number in a dogfight. F/A-18's have swept the sky of Russian built Mig-29's, but then again the German Air Force has dumped virtually all of their Mig-29's because the F-16's far outclass them.
Probably more than you wanted to know, my apologies for running on.
We didn't own the Migs, the German Air Force did. The APG-68 class radar in the F-16 far outclassed the Russian's in target acquisition, number of targets tracked, user interface, reliability ... every aspect.
The Russian's engines remain very unreliable, especially in high hour versions. I've taken the F-404's apart for after Marines have tossed them around for a couple of thousand flight hours, the hot sections are clean. Migs tend to have their's replaced entirely.
Some of the Russian AAM's are quite capable, especially their all aspect sort range missiles. However, the Slammers carried by the American aircraft as so good, they kill Migs before the short range missiles are an issue.
One on one, the Mig-29 is a capable aircraft with high acceleration, good turn capability and strong airframe. As a weapon system, they are expensive to maintain and not nearly as effective as either the F-16 or the F/A-18, especially in group engagements.
I'm not a pilot, I just work on the planes and weapons systems they fly. But, have yet to hear of a single air to air kill of a Mig-29 on any American aircraft ... and they have certainly had the opportunity. 100% kill ratio is hard to argue with.
The Russian's engines remain very unreliable, especially in high hour versions. I've taken the F-404's apart for after Marines have tossed them around for a couple of thousand flight hours, the hot sections are clean. Migs tend to have their's replaced entirely.
Some of the Russian AAM's are quite capable, especially their all aspect sort range missiles. However, the Slammers carried by the American aircraft as so good, they kill Migs before the short range missiles are an issue.
One on one, the Mig-29 is a capable aircraft with high acceleration, good turn capability and strong airframe. As a weapon system, they are expensive to maintain and not nearly as effective as either the F-16 or the F/A-18, especially in group engagements.
I'm not a pilot, I just work on the planes and weapons systems they fly. But, have yet to hear of a single air to air kill of a Mig-29 on any American aircraft ... and they have certainly had the opportunity. 100% kill ratio is hard to argue with.
I would say in exercises, and in Internet forums, the Russian made SUs and MIGs are invincible and far superior to anything we make.
I remember the MIG-25 scare. This superplane was going to sweep the skies clear of anything we could put up. We were in hysterics over the MIG-gap. Then some disaffected Russian pilot flew one to Japan and we got to inspect the thing. The MIG-25 was a piece of junk. It was just a very fast, unmanueverable, rocket ship that ended up being only good to shoot pictures from. The thing still used vacuum tubes and its radar was useless against anything flying low. So to counter it we just trained our bombers to fly low.
My favorite F-?/MIG fantasy exercise was this recent clown act we did with the Indian Air Force. No disrespect to the IAF but the entire episode was a sham designed to make our F-15s and F-16s look bad because? Because why? Can you imagine USAF, which is begging for more F-22s and F-35s, going to India and making the F-15 shine?nfloorl:
Looks like we have another MIG-gap:
I remember the MIG-25 scare. This superplane was going to sweep the skies clear of anything we could put up. We were in hysterics over the MIG-gap. Then some disaffected Russian pilot flew one to Japan and we got to inspect the thing. The MIG-25 was a piece of junk. It was just a very fast, unmanueverable, rocket ship that ended up being only good to shoot pictures from. The thing still used vacuum tubes and its radar was useless against anything flying low. So to counter it we just trained our bombers to fly low.
My favorite F-?/MIG fantasy exercise was this recent clown act we did with the Indian Air Force. No disrespect to the IAF but the entire episode was a sham designed to make our F-15s and F-16s look bad because? Because why? Can you imagine USAF, which is begging for more F-22s and F-35s, going to India and making the F-15 shine?
nfloorl: Looks like we have another MIG-gap
: 
I'm an enthusiast, not an expert, but the F-22A and F-35 are fifth generation stealth fighters, in a different class than the F-16 and F/A-18. Also note that the F/A-18 E & F Super Hornets are a different air frame from the earlier Hornets. Hopefully Big-E will wade in on this. I think he flies them-describes himself as a Bug Driver and his posts are very knowledgeable.
The F-22A is a first look-first shot-first kill aircraft. Article in 1/7/07 Aviation Week on June 2006 Northern Edge exercises, says Raptors had 144 kills with no losses against superior numbers of F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw010807p1.xml.
All the same, expect the F-16 to be around for a while. It's a proven, effective, flexible, low cost (< $20MM) aircraft with a lot of bang for the buck.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103
The F-22A is a first look-first shot-first kill aircraft. Article in 1/7/07 Aviation Week on June 2006 Northern Edge exercises, says Raptors had 144 kills with no losses against superior numbers of F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw010807p1.xml.
All the same, expect the F-16 to be around for a while. It's a proven, effective, flexible, low cost (< $20MM) aircraft with a lot of bang for the buck.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103
Rich, I do agree with you that Mig are not so good as some people claimed out of fancy.
But you seemed to over reacted that no one actually is praise Mig in this thread.
Rich, we are talking about US aircraft here, aren't you suppose to give out sth. Pretty eager to see your comments on F16 & F18.
PS. Thanks for your present for my spelling. Actually my English aren't that bad, at least my SAT score is above average. Can't spell well is result of keeping up innovation.(using Microsoft Word too much, I should try to pick up my pens back)
But you seemed to over reacted that no one actually is praise Mig in this thread.
And when you bring up story please bring up facts. At least some third party source which could support you claim.
Rich, we are talking about US aircraft here, aren't you suppose to give out sth. Pretty eager to see your comments on F16 & F18.
PS. Thanks for your present for my spelling. Actually my English aren't that bad, at least my SAT score is above average. Can't spell well is result of keeping up innovation.(using Microsoft Word too much, I should try to pick up my pens back)
When I said this,
Ok, sold might be a too big word for the 1€ deal we did with Poland.
And when did I stated that the MiG-29 is an überplane?
I just stated that it was a good plane when it comes to WVR engagements.
I also said that it sucked at BVR.
And yeah it was not easy to maintain and expensive to operate. Loiter time was also not that good, etc.
And I thought you wanted to ignore me Rich.
I didn't mean US (United States) but just us because I am german.
Ok, sold might be a too big word for the 1€ deal we did with Poland.
And when did I stated that the MiG-29 is an überplane?
I just stated that it was a good plane when it comes to WVR engagements.
I also said that it sucked at BVR.
And yeah it was not easy to maintain and expensive to operate. Loiter time was also not that good, etc.
And I thought you wanted to ignore me Rich.
Sorry to drag this thread more into the capabilities of Russian aircraft, but the mention of Raster Tubes in the Mig-25 deserves a quick aside.
True, they did find seemingly older technology in the Mig-25 that ended up n Japan. However, the tubes were actually not as backward as we might expect. They were more resistant to EMP and enabled extreme amplification of power. The Russians know how to leverage older technology to their advantage.
Mig-25's were certainly not the super fighters feared when we first saw them, but they don't deserve all the derision history heaps on them. Both Israeli and USAF F-15's have dropped them in combat. However, there is rumor that one F/A-18 was lost to an Iraqi Mig-25 in DS1. Just a rumor though.
From wikipedia's Mig-25 page (I can't post URL's yet)
* Seemingly obsolete, the use of vacuum tubes was ingenious because they were far less susceptible to EMP in case of nuclear warfare and were more tolerant of temperature extremes, thereby removing the need for providing complex environmental controls inside the avionics bays. In addition, the vacuum tubes were easy to replace in remote northern airfields where sophisticated transistor parts may not have been readily available. As with all Soviet aircraft, the MiG-25 was designed to be as rugged as possible.
* Thanks to the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P's original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name 'Foxfire') radar had enormous power — about 500 kilowatts — rendering enemy ECM largely useless.[citation needed] Pilots were forbidden to engage the radar on the ground, and legend held that it was powerful enough to kill rabbits near runways.[/QUOTE]
True, they did find seemingly older technology in the Mig-25 that ended up n Japan. However, the tubes were actually not as backward as we might expect. They were more resistant to EMP and enabled extreme amplification of power. The Russians know how to leverage older technology to their advantage.
Mig-25's were certainly not the super fighters feared when we first saw them, but they don't deserve all the derision history heaps on them. Both Israeli and USAF F-15's have dropped them in combat. However, there is rumor that one F/A-18 was lost to an Iraqi Mig-25 in DS1. Just a rumor though.
From wikipedia's Mig-25 page (I can't post URL's yet)
* Seemingly obsolete, the use of vacuum tubes was ingenious because they were far less susceptible to EMP in case of nuclear warfare and were more tolerant of temperature extremes, thereby removing the need for providing complex environmental controls inside the avionics bays. In addition, the vacuum tubes were easy to replace in remote northern airfields where sophisticated transistor parts may not have been readily available. As with all Soviet aircraft, the MiG-25 was designed to be as rugged as possible.
* Thanks to the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P's original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name 'Foxfire') radar had enormous power — about 500 kilowatts — rendering enemy ECM largely useless.[citation needed] Pilots were forbidden to engage the radar on the ground, and legend held that it was powerful enough to kill rabbits near runways.[/QUOTE]
Don't you feel my name is a common one?
Anyway it's nice to meet you.
Now, back to the topic, is it possible for F18E/F or F16C/D to engage F22?
Can an upgrade on the radar or other systems do the trick?
I do not mean winning in exactly 1 vs 1 mode. I just want to ask if it is possible that F22 could be shot down.
Waiting for more experts :unknown
radiosilence
jints
See post # 10. It hasn't happened yet and it doesn't seem likely. Again quoting from the Aviation Week article previously cited:
This refers to the 3 WVR kills including 1 gun kill. More from Aviation Week:
:usa