DanTMWTMP
Lifer
- Oct 7, 2001
- 15,908
- 19
- 81
hmm i thought both have it...and that russia's AF planned to have most of its plane w/ it...
mi-29 info
there's a caption in there about how it was compared to the f-16
hmm i thought both have it...and that russia's AF planned to have most of its plane w/ it...
mi-29 info
there's a caption in there about how it was compared to the f-16
Originally posted by: SuperGroove
I stopped talking about planes when an F4 Phantom pilot put things in perspective for me.
I don't know jack SH*T about planes, even if I read up on all of them. Each and every fighter pilot is different, and a plane is only as good as their pilot. An F-16 pilot will tell you that nothing can touch them in the sky. An F-14D fighter pilot will gloat about the uprated GE turbofans they have, and say nothing can touch them now.
A Su-27 pilot believes that with the AA-11 Archer, nothing can touch them.
I cannot describe how embarassed I was when I started saying which plane was better than which to a military pilot. I think shortly after that, I erased my disk of F-15, F/A-18, Falcon 4.0, and Flanker 2.0. He absolutely crushed meI then moved onto cars...something I can actually have experiences with
Anyways, the F16 is the benchmark with it's avionics suite, and maneuverability. You've listed all the counterparts, the F16 will hold its own against all of them, assuming they're USAF pilots.
Throw some Navy/Marine F/A-18 pilots into the mix...and things get hairy...these guys are the cockiest MFers around! Not only will they gloat about how they went through REAL boot camp
Gah...I wish I was pilot.
edit: IAF pilots are just as Sierra Hotel as anyone...I think they were judged the best Air Force in the world.
IAF pwns joo!!
Give one of them pilots an f-16, I think they would make smoke trials out of our pilots. And most other pilots in the world.
If U are looking for a nick name for the F-4 Phantom ... the unofficial nick for it would be the Flying Brick
Thats because when the plane was first designed they thought it would never fly because of the aerodynamics ... but it did ...
just goes to prove that if U put enough power behind a brick, U can make it fly too ...
And the success record for the Phantom was nice and it served the US Armed Forces for a long time.
btw, my personal favorite is the Grumman F-14 Tomcat closely followed by the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
USN active duty for over 6 yrs now and loving it
DX
Thats because when the plane was first designed they thought it would never fly because of the aerodynamics ... but it did ...
just goes to prove that if U put enough power behind a brick, U can make it fly too ...
And the success record for the Phantom was nice and it served the US Armed Forces for a long time.
btw, my personal favorite is the Grumman F-14 Tomcat closely followed by the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
USN active duty for over 6 yrs now and loving it
DX
Originally posted by: SuperGroove
I stopped talking about planes when an F4 Phantom pilot put things in perspective for me.
I don't know jack SH*T about planes, even if I read up on all of them. Each and every fighter pilot is different, and a plane is only as good as their pilot. An F-16 pilot will tell you that nothing can touch them in the sky. An F-14D fighter pilot will gloat about the uprated GE turbofans they have, and say nothing can touch them now.
A Su-27 pilot believes that with the AA-11 Archer, nothing can touch them.
I cannot describe how embarassed I was when I started saying which plane was better than which to a military pilot. I think shortly after that, I erased my disk of F-15, F/A-18, Falcon 4.0, and Flanker 2.0. He absolutely crushed me
Anyways, the F16 is the benchmark with it's avionics suite, and maneuverability. You've listed all the counterparts, the F16 will hold its own against all of them, assuming they're USAF pilots.
Throw some Navy/Marine F/A-18 pilots into the mix...and things get hairy...these guys are the cockiest MFers around! Not only will they gloat about how they went through REAL boot camp
Gah...I wish I was pilot.
edit: IAF pilots are just as Sierra Hotel as anyone...I think they were judged the best Air Force in the world.
Okies SuperGroove ... here we go
First of all the navy pilots do love the Grumman F-14D Tomcat with the GE F110 engines because at about 28,200 lbs of thrust per engine it gives them a thrust to weight ratio of almost 1:1 ... because the max takeoff weight of a F-14B/D is around 64,000 lbs.
Secondly landing on an aircraft carrier is no joke ... try stopping ur car on a dime thats laid out in the middle of a big parking lot and U will know what I mean ... Sure they are cocky mofos, but for them the air combat is not the only thing ... they also have to worry about getting onboard safely and when U are trying to land on a carrier deck in the middle of the night when its pouring rain, its gets a bit scary.
Thirdly, I totally agree with what U said on the F-16 ... the Fly by wire flight controls are breathtaking ... also the pilot seat is reclined at a 30 degree angle just so that they can withstand the higher G forces which the plane was designed for ... imho Its one of the best handling planes without thrust vectoring ...
DX
I remember that Germans did some comparison between Mig-29's and western fighters. In short, they found out that:
Mig-pilots use Warsaw Pact tactics: They get blown out of the sky
Mig-pilots use Western tactics: things get really ugly for the west.
In short: The Migs were excellent fighter that could compete (and win) with western designs. But the tactics used by the Warsaw Pact sucked hard.
Uh, yeah sure
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Aquaman
I though F-16 was a Macdonald Douglas plane? Still one of my favourites though
Cheers,
Aquaman
The F-16 was originally manufactured by General Dynamics. Now Lockheed (SR71, U2, F-22, F-35) has control.
Ohh, if you want to watch a good movie on the F-16, General Dynamics, and wire chaffing, check out "Afterburn." I think it was an HBO movie and it stars Laura Dern and Robert Loggia.
Wow........... I was way off
Still one of my fav fighters though Cheers,
Aquaman
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Uh, yeah sure. Sure, F-22 is better. But it also costs ALOT more. Honestly, you sound like one of those flag-waving jingoists who automatically assume that "anything made in USA = Good, anything made somewhere else = bad".
i agree wnied is a prick, ive read a lot of his posts, and never really agree with them.
the eurofighter was a single bomber/ fighter replacement. since we wont be fighting russia or the us, we dont need anything better. interms of the arabs and despots, we just bomb the runways on the first day, then we dont have to worry too much. also as long as they are high in the sky, its who can see and shoot the furthest.
take iraq, the british are using sea harrier jump jets, tornados, and jaguars, all of which are pretty old and slow, but none have been shot down.
the eurofighter is good as if one euro state fights with another we all have the same equipment, and we dont have to rely on american congress strings to get more parts.
You have a forbidden word in your message post. Please click the back button in your browser and remove this word from your post.
The words that are forbidden are highlighted for you.
What are the Lockheed F-16's foreign counterparts and how do they stack up?
personally i like the jump jet, A-10 and B52's
jump jet is obvious, and has good fighting capabilities, the A-10 takes things out, and the B52's are similar but on a grand long range scale.
this fighter plane, is bull sh1t. in ten years we will all just send 200 air to air drones up, and all the enemy planes in the air will be histoire.
The words that are forbidden are highlighted for you.
What are the Lockheed F-16's foreign counterparts and how do they stack up?
personally i like the jump jet, A-10 and B52's
jump jet is obvious, and has good fighting capabilities, the A-10 takes things out, and the B52's are similar but on a grand long range scale.
this fighter plane, is bull sh1t. in ten years we will all just send 200 air to air drones up, and all the enemy planes in the air will be histoire.
im from the uk. america has the budget for pretty much anythingit liks, and can then just copy and deploy in volume.
also battle bots, or drones as you may call them whether they are on land with wheels and tracks, or air with 'flapping wings' or fixed wings, or are installed for visual observation and laser traget designation, eg in afghan and yemeni valleys, are the way things are going.
also battle bots, or drones as you may call them whether they are on land with wheels and tracks, or air with 'flapping wings' or fixed wings, or are installed for visual observation and laser traget designation, eg in afghan and yemeni valleys, are the way things are going.
In short: The Migs were excellent fighter that could compete (and win) with western designs. But the tactics used by the Warsaw Pact sucked hard.
MiG-29 competes favorably against the F-16? That must be some good crack you're smoking!
Of course, people here seem to believe that the "lawn dart" F-16 is a match for the F-15 Eagle. What happens when that one engine flames out? See term highlighted in quotes.
Another nickname for the F-4 is the Rhino. I've not seen much mention of it, but I was told that by a former F-4 pilot numerous years ago. It was analogous to the Viper moniker for the F-16 (now official, however), something bandied about in certain pilot circles.
Uh, yeah sure . Sure, F-22 is better. But it also costs ALOT more. Honestly, you sound like one of those flag-waving jingoists who automatically assume that "anything made in USA = Good, anything made somewhere else = bad".
Hmm, let's see...F-22 versus the EF? F-22: Better radar, better RCS, better engines, better manueverability, better weapon load, better speed, better electronics suite, produced at the same time. The Eurofighter is an example of how NOT to conduct a weapons procurement program and epitomizes the problems with the EU. Sure, it works, but it's far inferior to the F-22 and probably inferior to even the Su-30.
hmm i thought both have it...and that russia's AF planned to have most of its plane w/ it...
Only widely-shown Russian plane to have thrust vectoring is the Su-37 technology demonstrator and airshow queen. It's little surprise that a MiG-29 version exists, however, since the engines are comparable (again, though, it's a tech demonstrator). The first production aircraft to have thurst vectoring is the F-22 Raptor, coming soon to Tyndall AFB, FL -- 23 to be produced this fiscal year!
The Russians have abandoned the larger older designs of Sukhoi and MiG and are focusing on a smaller fighter for their next upgrade. Given their fiscal constraints, I would find it highly surprising if they had the money to upgrade their entire fleet of MiGs to include thrust vectoring. It's more likely that they'll concentrate on acquiring new aircraft.
MiG-29 competes favorably against the F-16? That must be some good crack you're smoking!
Of course, people here seem to believe that the "lawn dart" F-16 is a match for the F-15 Eagle. What happens when that one engine flames out? See term highlighted in quotes.
Another nickname for the F-4 is the Rhino. I've not seen much mention of it, but I was told that by a former F-4 pilot numerous years ago. It was analogous to the Viper moniker for the F-16 (now official, however), something bandied about in certain pilot circles.
Uh, yeah sure . Sure, F-22 is better. But it also costs ALOT more. Honestly, you sound like one of those flag-waving jingoists who automatically assume that "anything made in USA = Good, anything made somewhere else = bad".
Hmm, let's see...F-22 versus the EF? F-22: Better radar, better RCS, better engines, better manueverability, better weapon load, better speed, better electronics suite, produced at the same time. The Eurofighter is an example of how NOT to conduct a weapons procurement program and epitomizes the problems with the EU. Sure, it works, but it's far inferior to the F-22 and probably inferior to even the Su-30.
hmm i thought both have it...and that russia's AF planned to have most of its plane w/ it...
Only widely-shown Russian plane to have thrust vectoring is the Su-37 technology demonstrator and airshow queen. It's little surprise that a MiG-29 version exists, however, since the engines are comparable (again, though, it's a tech demonstrator). The first production aircraft to have thurst vectoring is the F-22 Raptor, coming soon to Tyndall AFB, FL -- 23 to be produced this fiscal year!
The Russians have abandoned the larger older designs of Sukhoi and MiG and are focusing on a smaller fighter for their next upgrade. Given their fiscal constraints, I would find it highly surprising if they had the money to upgrade their entire fleet of MiGs to include thrust vectoring. It's more likely that they'll concentrate on acquiring new aircraft.
I'm not sure what western fighters they compared to the Mig-29, but they did use modern western fighters. Of course, you will find it 100% impossible for a non-american fighter to be competetive with an american plane
You have problems reading or something? Or you can read but you don't understand it? Let me repeat what I said:
What did I say? Shock and horror! I said that F-22 is better than the Eurofighter :Q! I also said that F-22 costs alot more, which is the truth. I would sure hope that F-22 is better since it costs alot more. But the Eurofighter is nothing to sneeze at. It IS one of the best fighters there is.
And how exactly "The Eurofighter is an example of how NOT to conduct a weapons procurement program and epitomizes the problems with the EU.". And how do you know that it's so inferior to everything else?
Originally posted by: AndrewR
In short: The Migs were excellent fighter that could compete (and win) with western designs. But the tactics used by the Warsaw Pact sucked hard.
MiG-29 competes favorably against the F-16? That must be some good crack you're smoking! Read Jane's MiG-29. It has pilots account of flying Luftwaffe MiG-29s against late model F-16Cs. In close, the MiG-29 is more than a match with its off boresight targeting system. It is also a threat because in close, it may disappear from a RWR if the MiG pilot decides to use its IR sensor as opposed to the radar
Of course, people here seem to believe that the "lawn dart" F-16 is a match for the F-15 Eagle. What happens when that one engine flames out? See term highlighted in quotes.
Another nickname for the F-4 is the Rhino. I've not seen much mention of it, but I was told that by a former F-4 pilot numerous years ago. It was analogous to the Viper moniker for the F-16 (now official, however), something bandied about in certain pilot circles. One more nickname for the F-4 was Double Ugly
What did I say? Shock and horror! I said that F-22 is better than the Eurofighter ! I also said that F-22 costs alot more, which is the truth. I would sure hope that F-22 is better since it costs alot more. But the Eurofighter is nothing to sneeze at. It IS one of the best fighters there is.
My point is that the F-22 outclasses the EF in every conceivable category. Sure, the cost of the EF is lower, but then again a F-4 Phantom II costs less than the EF -- should the Euros go ahead and buy those instead? There's a reason why the F-22 costs more, and it matters -- tremendously.
Calm down -- we're just blabbing about aircraft!
And how exactly "The Eurofighter is an example of how NOT to conduct a weapons procurement program and epitomizes the problems with the EU."
How long has the EF been in development and how many problems have they had in the process with farming out the various components to individual member nations? International consortiums have only worked in a few instances (Tornado for one) but have failed in numerous others. I don't envy the people who have to weigh political considerations versus the best design -- that's my point about the EU. I hope that the EF works out, but I think they ignored some key aspects in designing it, particular low observable technology.
In close, the MiG-29 is more than a match with its off boresight targeting system.
See, that's the point. It's well known that Russian aircraft are good in WVR engagements because it plays to their maneuverability and weapons, but how are they going to get in close? The U.S. doesn't have the AMRAAM to sit there and look pretty. Plus, that advantage doesn't take into account the AIM-9X and the JHMCS (U.S. helmet mounted sight).
The F-16C block 52 has a 29,000lb thrust producing engine that gives it near 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.
F-15 has about 50,000 lb of thrust between the two engines (FAS figure). Ask yourself this: Is a multirole aircraft going to be better at air-to-air than a dedicated air superiority fighter?
My point is that the F-22 outclasses the EF in every conceivable category. Sure, the cost of the EF is lower, but then again a F-4 Phantom II costs less than the EF -- should the Euros go ahead and buy those instead? There's a reason why the F-22 costs more, and it matters -- tremendously.
Calm down -- we're just blabbing about aircraft!
And how exactly "The Eurofighter is an example of how NOT to conduct a weapons procurement program and epitomizes the problems with the EU."
How long has the EF been in development and how many problems have they had in the process with farming out the various components to individual member nations? International consortiums have only worked in a few instances (Tornado for one) but have failed in numerous others. I don't envy the people who have to weigh political considerations versus the best design -- that's my point about the EU. I hope that the EF works out, but I think they ignored some key aspects in designing it, particular low observable technology.
In close, the MiG-29 is more than a match with its off boresight targeting system.
See, that's the point. It's well known that Russian aircraft are good in WVR engagements because it plays to their maneuverability and weapons, but how are they going to get in close? The U.S. doesn't have the AMRAAM to sit there and look pretty. Plus, that advantage doesn't take into account the AIM-9X and the JHMCS (U.S. helmet mounted sight).
The F-16C block 52 has a 29,000lb thrust producing engine that gives it near 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.
F-15 has about 50,000 lb of thrust between the two engines (FAS figure). Ask yourself this: Is a multirole aircraft going to be better at air-to-air than a dedicated air superiority fighter?
The F-16 C and D use one Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200/220/229 or General Electric F110-GE-100/129 rated @ 27,000lbs of thrust.
The F-15 C and D use two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 or 229 turbofan engines with afterburners rated @ 23,450lbs of thrust.
Nothing comes close to the Eagle when it comes to the air superioruty role. The F-15E has turned into quite the nice multi-mission platform as well.
The F-15 C and D use two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 or 229 turbofan engines with afterburners rated @ 23,450lbs of thrust.
Nothing comes close to the Eagle when it comes to the air superioruty role. The F-15E has turned into quite the nice multi-mission platform as well.
The point is that it's pretty easy to design an aircraft that is better than the competition... Assuming you have unlimited budget. You can design a fighter that outclasses it's competitors, but that comes at a price. F-22 is an example. It's better than Eurofighter, but it's also alot more expensive. It's the principle of diminishing return: you can improve the specs, but it will cost more and more to do so.
You make big point about "low observable technology" because that's the thing US is pushing right now. Sure, EF could have stealth, but it would drive the cost up. It could cost so much that manufacturing the plane is pointless. How long has F-22 (or it's rival, F-23 (if I recall correctly)) been in the pipeline?
EDIT: I did some checking. And EF DOES have stealth-technology!
EDIT2: And you said that Mig-29 is no match to F-16. Where do you base that claim? F-16 isn't actually a master at long-range sniping. Mig-29 is extremely agile and deadly in a dogfight (the first western-pilot to ever fly Mig-29, and test-pilot of RAF, said "It's an awesome plane. It can do thing no plane in west is capable of").
I remember watching a show on I think Discovery about the US sending over a squad of f-16s to do some training missions against the east German mig-29 pilots. I can't remeber much about the show except we, the US, put some restrictions on how the Migs could fly, for training purposes, and they still did pretty well. I think it was called Red Skies or something stupid like that.
Only problem is, we do not have an unlimited budget. If we did, we would buy 5000 F-22s at a much lower cost per unit, than the 330 we plan to buy now. The F-22 costs more, but then our military deserves the best. We learned some hard lessons in WWI and WWII about not having a prepared military.
The original idea for the F-22 was started around 1980 with the first test flight occuring in the early 90s.
The point is that it's pretty easy to design an aircraft that is better than the competition... Assuming you have unlimited budget. You can design a fighter that outclasses it's competitors, but that comes at a price. F-22 is an example. It's better than Eurofighter, but it's also alot more expensive. It's the principle of diminishing return: you can improve the specs, but it will cost more and more to do so.
But, see, is it more expensive in the long run? If one F-22 is worth three Eurofighters (meaning: in a 3-1 engagement, the F-22 wins), then the F-22 can be three times as expensive AND STILL COST LESS! You have one pilot versus three, which saves an enormous amount of money both in initial training and follow-on proficiency training. Plus, you have one airframe to fix and maintain as opposed to three, with triple the amount of groundcrew and facilities needed.
BTW, the 3-1 thing is just something I fabricated, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it were true. If the F-22 is as dominating now as the F-15 was when it was introduced, that should be about right.
EDIT: I did some checking. And EF DOES have stealth-technology!
EF does have some design features to take advantage of some LO (low observable) technology, but it is not designed from the ground up to be a stealth aircraft like the F-22. It's RCS is going to be lower than it would otherwise be, but it's probably several magnitude higher than the Raptor. You can't kill what you can't see, which I'm sure the pilots appreciate.
Look, I think the MiG-29 is a really cool aircraft. In fact, in terms of looks, I think it's my favorite -- it just looks sexy! There was one on a static display at my last base, and I just loved the way that plane is shaped. Being in the U.S. Air Force, though, I have to take my aircraft over the enemy's. Plus, the USAF has done very well with the F-16 in both Serbia and Iraq, aside from O'Grady's little fiasco.
But, see, is it more expensive in the long run? If one F-22 is worth three Eurofighters (meaning: in a 3-1 engagement, the F-22 wins), then the F-22 can be three times as expensive AND STILL COST LESS! You have one pilot versus three, which saves an enormous amount of money both in initial training and follow-on proficiency training. Plus, you have one airframe to fix and maintain as opposed to three, with triple the amount of groundcrew and facilities needed.
BTW, the 3-1 thing is just something I fabricated, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it were true. If the F-22 is as dominating now as the F-15 was when it was introduced, that should be about right.
EDIT: I did some checking. And EF DOES have stealth-technology!
EF does have some design features to take advantage of some LO (low observable) technology, but it is not designed from the ground up to be a stealth aircraft like the F-22. It's RCS is going to be lower than it would otherwise be, but it's probably several magnitude higher than the Raptor. You can't kill what you can't see, which I'm sure the pilots appreciate.
Look, I think the MiG-29 is a really cool aircraft. In fact, in terms of looks, I think it's my favorite -- it just looks sexy! There was one on a static display at my last base, and I just loved the way that plane is shaped. Being in the U.S. Air Force, though, I have to take my aircraft over the enemy's.
Plus, the USAF has done very well with the F-16 in both Serbia and Iraq, aside from O'Grady's little fiasco.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Thats my baby
The 16 was intended to be a replacement for the F5, Cheap & inexpensive A/G attack fighter.
The 16 SPO (Systems Project Office) then wanted to have the A/C keep up with the big boy (15). The kept redesigning and specing until the 16 came out to be more $$ than was intended with all the avionics added. Notice that no additional A-A weapons were put on.
Standard joke when I was working on the C/D models was the difference between the 15 & 16 was $1M (cost of an engine).
The IAF were ablt to prove that the D model with mods worked, So grew the E model.
Hello AndrewR - No F22 here yet.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter