Slashdot Mirror

Other aircraft can carry guns with similar capabilities in terms of rate of fire in conformal packs or underwing if the mission requires it but they don't HAVE to cart them around if they're not needed.

Pod-mounted guns are notoriously inaccurate. To the point that they won't be carried, since they can't hit anything. Witness the ill-fated A-16.

So if you want a gun that can hit something, you have to put it inside the plane. Same lesson was learned with the F-4 in Vietnam.

features some contrived anti-air defense that is somehow not good enough to defeat the F-35s rudimentary stealth but is good enough to be a credible thread to the A-10

Pretty much any late-Cold War SARH (Semi-Active Radar Homing) SAM fits this category. A prolific example would be the 2K12/ SA-6 'Kub'. If the experience bombing Yugoslavia is any indication, some of them will survive SEAD missions. Not a contrived scenario at all. Also applies to any Third-Generation or even early Fourth-Generation fighters doing CAP missions. Sometimes there are Leakers (enemy aircraft that get past friendly air defenses/CAP).

doesn't require the aircraft providing CAS to loiter, expend large amounts of ordinance, use the main gun extensively, fly low/slow or do anything the F-35 sucks at

Loiter time: If you have a permissive air environment with almost-no air threat, which is the sort of scenario where you'll want to use the A-10, then the CAS platforms with the best loiter times are an MQ-9 Reaper and an AC-130 anyway. If you really want a fast jet with loiter time....the F-15E beats both the A-10 and the F-35...and is a better dogfighter too.

Expending large amounts of ordinance: the F-35A and C both have 18,000lbs max payload. The A-10 is 16,000lbs. The F-35B is 15,000lbs. So even if trucking a full bombload was required, this is a wash.

Use the main gun extensively: Of course the A-10's best feature is strafing tank columns with gun rounds, so not much argument there, but that itself is a somewhat contrived scenario. Here's two really good posts on F-16.net about A-10 CAS employment and modernization trends: http://www.f-16.net/forum/view...
http://www.f-16.net/forum/view...

requires the CAS aircraft to sprint around at higher speeds than the A-10 is capable of

Sometimes time-sensitive immediate air support requests (say, for engaging High Value Targets on the move) are required. Blasting the target with a HIMARs fire mission would be even faster, but not a good guarantee of target destruction, especially for something mobile and armored...

reconstitutes the CAS mission to consist of dropping a small amount of ordinance from high altitude with no loiter

This is not a "reconstitution" of the CAS mission. CAS is not restricted to low altitude bombing/strafing runs. It has more to do with battlespace/command & control relationships. While flight behavior of the aircraft can be a limitation, that's very much dependent on aviation platform, the ordnance, and the tactical situation and is not specific to the CAS mission itself. Reference MCWP 3-23 Offensive Air Support Page 2-2: "CAS is air action by fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and which require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces"

features some contrived anti-air defense that is somehow not good enough to defeat the F-35s rudimentary stealth but is good enough to be a credible thread to the A-10

Pretty much any late-Cold War SARH (Semi-Active Radar Homing) SAM fits this category. A prolific example would be the 2K12/ SA-6 'Kub'. If the experience bombing Yugoslavia is any indication, some of them will survive SEAD missions. Not a contrived scenario at all. Also applies to any Third-Generation or even early Fourth-Generation fighters doing CAP missions. Sometimes there are Leakers (enemy aircraft that get past friendly air defenses/CAP).

doesn't require the aircraft providing CAS to loiter, expend large amounts of ordinance, use the main gun extensively, fly low/slow or do anything the F-35 sucks at

Loiter time: If you have a permissive air environment with almost-no air threat, which is the sort of scenario where you'll want to use the A-10, then the CAS platforms with the best loiter times are an MQ-9 Reaper and an AC-130 anyway. If you really want a fast jet with loiter time....the F-15E beats both the A-10 and the F-35...and is a better dogfighter too.

Expending large amounts of ordinance: the F-35A and C both have 18,000lbs max payload. The A-10 is 16,000lbs. The F-35B is 15,000lbs. So even if trucking a full bombload was required, this is a wash.

Use the main gun extensively: Of course the A-10's best feature is strafing tank columns with gun rounds, so not much argument there, but that itself is a somewhat contrived scenario. Here's two really good posts on F-16.net about A-10 CAS employment and modernization trends: http://www.f-16.net/forum/view...
http://www.f-16.net/forum/view...

requires the CAS aircraft to sprint around at higher speeds than the A-10 is capable of

Sometimes time-sensitive immediate air support requests (say, for engaging High Value Targets on the move) are required. Blasting the target with a HIMARs fire mission would be even faster, but not a good guarantee of target destruction, especially for something mobile and armored...

reconstitutes the CAS mission to consist of dropping a small amount of ordinance from high altitude with no loiter

This is not a "reconstitution" of the CAS mission. CAS is not restricted to low altitude bombing/strafing runs. It has more to do with battlespace/command & control relationships. While flight behavior of the aircraft can be a limitation, that's very much dependent on aviation platform, the ordnance, and the tactical situation and is not specific to the CAS mission itself. Reference MCWP 3-23 Offensive Air Support Page 2-2: "CAS is air action by fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and which require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces"

$2B dollars actually is pretty good for that kind of force projection, delivering a couple cruise missiles beyond air defense can decide a war.

$1.1 trillion for a fighter program that hasn't been delivered yet and actually might not ever is rather different. The B-2 has a big bottom-line number but the development and maintenance programs are really where we get taken to the cleaners. You should smell a rat the moment you see the word "affordable" in a military mission patch.

They made the right choice as long as they don't need to use what ever they get as a replacement. We still make the best planes over here.

Even the people at f-16.net appears to like Gripen more. The consensus seems to be that F-16 is a better at carrying loads at long distances but Gripen in better in direct combat or situations where maneuverability is of importance. In any training missions where both planes were used Gripen came out ahead.

The thing is that the designs are different for a reason. Gripen is designed to defend a relatively small airspace against intruding planes. The F-16 have sacrificed some of this ability to make it more usable as a medium range offensive unit.

So if you want to take out tanks in Iraq, go for F-16. If you want to defend yourself against F-16, use Gripen.

I don't know what you mean with "over here" but I'm pretty sure you don't mean over at Boeing.

Nonsense. Both aircraft are roughly equal in capabilities and performance. The F-16 is older but has a more powerful engine. This translates into faster acceleration and a higher ceiling for the F-16. The F-16 is slightly more versatile than the Gripen due to 40% more takeoff weight and can handle 31% more external stores than the Gripen. The Gripen can out turn the F-16 and has a greater combat radius. Personally, I would take both the Gripen and F-16 over the F-18 Hornet. Here is a comparison between the two aircraft. http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/92292.aspx

They made the right choice as long as they don't need to use what ever they get as a replacement. We still make the best planes over here.

Even the people at f-16.net appears to like Gripen more. The consensus seems to be that F-16 is a better at carrying loads at long distances but Gripen in better in direct combat or situations where maneuverability is of importance.
In any training missions where both planes were used Gripen came out ahead.

The thing is that the designs are different for a reason. Gripen is designed to defend a relatively small airspace against intruding planes. The F-16 have sacrificed some of this ability to make it more usable as a medium range offensive unit.

So if you want to take out tanks in Iraq, go for F-16. If you want to defend yourself against F-16, use Gripen.

I don't know what you mean with "over here" but I'm pretty sure you don't mean over at Boeing.

That's OK - just call it the Lawn Dart and everyone will know what you're talking about. The joke comes out of the fact that the F-16 is a single engine airplane and has all fly-by-wire flight controls without manual backup. Combine that ALSO with the fact that a lot of F-16s were powered by the Pratt F-100-PW-220 engine, which has had a reputation for being not exactly the most reliable motor. This has led to a lot of people needing to bail out of the jet for engine problems -- failure, fire, bird ingestion, etc. This leaves that sleek, pointy-nosed aerospace vehicle to fall to earth ballistically, just like a lawn dart. They lost nearly a squadron a year this way.

They called it the Viper after the Colonial Viper from the Battlestar Galactica TV series. The real one - the one with the inimitable Lorne Greene as Commander Adama and the dashing Dirk Benedict as Starbuck the cigar-chomping, womanizing lovable rogue. You know, back when they used to come up with new ideas for TV shows instead of "re-imagining" old series that frankly weren't that great in the first place.

This article claims that part of the reason for the "Fighting Falcon" rather than "Falcon" name was to avoid being named too similarly to the Dassault Falcon.

Grease pencil on weapons placards was common (the Navy may still use it).

When we deployed to Al Dhafra, grease pencils were even used for nose art:

http://www.f-16.net/interviews_article33.html

Note the old-school white placard on this O-2:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/432712455_fda36d0f7d.jpg

Tape is available and produces the required contrast. There is no functional reason not to use tape and marker.

USAF's name is the Fighting Falcon, but everyone that works with them calls them Vipers, yea from Battlestar Galactica in the late '70s.

http://viperpatches.jetmax.us/Swirl_USAF_01.htm
http://www.f-16.net/articles_article10.html?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=2&pid=27

Even the yearly exercise where USAF F-16s go to Romania and train with the newly rebuilt MiG-21s is called Viper Lance.
F-16=Viper
MiG-21 LanceR=Lance

An F-16 's stall speed is around 180 knots, but depends on a number of other factors (air density, angle of attack, etc.). Fighter pilots use racetrack patterns to stay with slower planes like that one.

Citations ... err ... clarification please.

    Toyota Vista (Rebadged Toyota Camary)

    Indica Vista (Indian made/sold car)

    Dodge/Plymouth Colt Vista Wagon (Rebadged Mitsubishi Chariot)

    Eagle Vista (Rebadged Mitsubishi Space Wagon)

    Thomas Vista a mighty big station wagon. :)

    Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser The "That 70's Show" classic 1969 Vista Cruiser. :)

    The only Vista I'd want to own is This One (More Information), but fuel is kinda expensive.

On the other hand, people never seem to complain when the government buys expensive airplanes. The Indian airforce decided in 2005 to upgrade its aging planes and buy 126 new multi-role fighter jets. If we use an estimate from this contract, in 2003 dollars this comes out to 126*$72.9 million per plane = $1.2 billion for the upgrade, approximately. Here, we're presuming that if they didn't choose F-16s, whatever they chose was of a commensurate cost. By contrast, the space mission which has many indirect benefits (as pointed out by other /. readers) for India only costs $100 million in *today's* dollars. Now I know that militaries need to keep current with the latest, greatest hardware, but the contrast in cost is striking. It seems that people love to pick on space programs as if they are the only other source of funding for poverty programs when there are clearly other contenders for the expenditures.

On the other hand, people never seem to complain when the government buys expensive airplanes. The Indian airforce decided in 2005 to upgrade its aging planes and buy 126 new multi-role fighter jets. If we use an estimate from this contract, in 2003 dollars this comes out to 126*$72.9 million per plane = $1.2 billion for the upgrade, approximately. Here, we're presuming that if they didn't choose F-16s, whatever they chose was of a commensurate cost. By contrast, the space mission which has many indirect benefits (as pointed out by other /. readers) for India only costs $100 million in *today's* dollars. Now I know that militaries need to keep current with the latest, greatest hardware, but the contrast in cost is striking. It seems that people love to pick on space programs as if they are the only other source of funding for poverty programs when there are clearly other contenders for the expenditures.

There's a way to do this right. Read this article about the F-16 GCAS. This is a ground collision avoidance system that works so well it can be used on combat missions, including flying through mountain passes at 500 knots, 200 feet from rock. Pilots call it "You can't fly any lower". When the Auto-GCAS decides a ground collision is imminent, it takes over the aircraft, rolls to wings-level and initiates a pull-up. (In an F-16, the roll is at 180 degrees per second and the pull-up is at 5G; for an airliner, much lower numbers would be configured and recovery would be initiated much sooner.) Read the article; fighter jocks liked the thing, and those guys usually hate letting the automation take over the aircraft.

This would prevent most "controlled flight into terrain" accidents (there are about three of those involving commercial jets per year, worldwide), so there's a big win in having this independent of military/terrorism worries. Once you have a system like this, it can be given "no-fly" areas into which it won't let the plane go. If you're going to enforce "no-fly" zones via hardware, it's better to do it through a system that knows about terrain and is looking at it with radar.

The way to do overrides would be to give the pilot a switch to turn off the system in an emergency, but doing so sends out an emergency transponder signal that this has been done. The ground then has the option of sending up a suitably encrypted signal to turn it back on. This gives a way to handle system failures. If the ground sees a plane heading somewhere it shouldn't be, the ground can force the system back on.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Airbus starts offering something like this. (Airbus takes the position that the aircraft should protect itself against pilot errors. Boeing has the philosophy that the pilot should always be able to override the automation. The Boeing approach worked better back when the typical airline pilot had 10,000 hours, a previous military flying career, and was chosen competitively from a big pool of applicants.)

Indeed. Here's one of the better writeups.

Is it?

(And that's not what he said anyway)

It's as much a defensive weapon as it is offensive, as quoted:

"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

On other fronts, the F-22 represents our leading edge technology (even though it's essentially 1990's tech) and is what gives us an advantage. It's not surprising the technology isn't up for export. The F-15 and F-16 both were in the same position when they were introduced, but eventually were considered for export after there advantage subsided a bit (or "lower" tech versions of them were available).

As well, the F-22 is really expensive. The United States is one of the few countries (or groups of countries) that can pull off such an endeavor. This also naturally limits its export capability, there's simply few others that could afford to buy it.

IMHO, Japan will end up with export variants of the F-35 (the USAF already has F-22 stationed in Okinawa). And continue with their F-15 and possibly be allowed to construct a variant of the F-15E to replace their aging F-4s (though their limited production of F-2 can already fulfill this requirement).

Japan has tried this move before, they eventually canceled production of their F-2 program (basically a modernized F-16) and are looking to persuade the United Stated to open up more tech for them to acquire (again, probably the F-35, though possibly future F-22 export variants).

All Japan produced planes, so far, have been based on US tech. Any other home grown R&D project would be too expensive to survive in the political arena. There's no reason to believe this ATD-X project will find the same fate.

Finally, IMHO, it wouldn't be able to beat the F-22 is most engagements. Physical performance is only one aspect of why the F-22 is the best air superiority fighter in the world. Avionics, radar, and weapon load out represent some of the others. The ATD-X would just be too expensive to match the F-22 in all areas, if it sees flight, major compromises will have to be make.

This post coming from a guy who just saw the F-16, F-15, and F-22 fly back to back at the Gathering of Mustangs and Legends.

"You can't fly any lower describes an advanced ground contact avoidance system developed in Sweden and tested on F16s. This is really impressive.

After moderate checks of the system at shallow dive angles and an aborted run or two, Prosser simulated several fatal mishaps. The first replicated a pilot flying on night-vision goggles (NVG) and losing situational awareness. With Auto-GCAS minimum descent altitude set at 500-ft. AGL (a medium-risk test condition), Prosser rolled into a partially inverted 5g turn, then back to a 90-deg. bank before relaxing his grip on the stick. The mishap pilot had lost the night horizon and, thinking he was approximately wings-level, let the nose fall. He was unknowingly diving toward the ground. Similar NVG-related accidents have killed F-16 and A-10 pilots.

While the flat Rosamond Dry Lake raced upward at us, filling my out-the-canopy field-of-view, I glanced at my back-seat HUD repeater and saw two large chevrons moving toward the center of the display. Their arrow-points touched, and we immediately snap-rolled to wings-level and pulled sharply to about 10 deg. nose-up. When the "You got it!" annunciation sounded, we were climbing at about 317 kt. and 2,940 ft., roughly 600+ ft. above the lakebed--an artificially high altitude established for safety reasons.

This thing is dealing with flight situations much tougher than anything the big transports do. It's designed not to interfere with typical attack aircraft maneuvers. We flew about 200 ft. above the ground at 520-560 kt., popping over high-tension power lines, hills and small ridges. Slipping through cuts in the desert mountains, rolling inverted to pull down the backside of ridges, and carving around the sides of rocky hills, Prosser demonstrated that a pilot could fly a normal, low-level tactical mission without experiencing a single nuisance fly-up. But go a little too low, and there's a "speedbump" as the system nudges the aircraft up a bit.

The system turns off when you're set up for landing: slow speed, wheels down, flaps down.

This would have saved United 93, where they had a fight in the cockpit. If the computers take over when the plane is headed into the ground, a number of situations become survivable. Not just hijackings; crashes due to pilot distraction or navigational error; what's called "controlled flight into terrain".

Then explain Iran's F-16 problems, if that is the case.
Iran's F-16 maintenance nightmare

If the Eurofighter's radar can't detect the F-22, multiple Eurofighters won't be any great advantage compared to one.

Well, actually, the F-15 is the Eagle. I know the F-16 is officially called the Fighting Falcon, but it is also often referred to as the Viper.

That's already been done!

For those of you who don't get it, one of the nicknames of the F-16 is "Viper".

Yet another post that won't be seen and enjoyed because of my bad karma....

Electronically, the JAS-39 is pretty cool because multiple JAS-39 combine their radars to form a single view of the battlespace. It's also more maneuverable than our own F-16. Because the JAS-39 is a smaller aircraft, it does not compete with the F-15. However, as it stands, the -only- aircraft that the USA produces that really outclasses all European fighters is the F-22. The EF-2000 and Rafale are at least as good as, if not better, than our own F-15 variants.

I don't know where the Navy's new FA/18s stand with respect to the above.

F 16 Net

Air Force Association

It's worth noting that an F-16 also has one hell of a lot of thrust. So much so, that it can fly with one wing. You're not going to get that kind of performance out of a Cessna or Moller skycar. Thus your run of the mill pilot has to be a bit more deliberate in his use of control surfaces.

(Can anyone imagine a Cessna performing an inverted flight like the one in Top Gun? You wouldn't be getting a good Polaroid, that's for sure!)

I can't find any news article about it any more

The incident occurred on June 17. There's a brief reference to it here.

Generally, the military restricts supersonic speed over land to altitudes above 30,000 feet to limit the intensity of the sonic boom. It is probably a measure of the urgency of that mission that the F-16s broke the sound barrier so soon after take off.

Once I'd seen what they were capable of (you'll have to imagine a hundred 20mm rounds per second hitting a soldier; I'm intentionally not seeking a link), that sound took on a whole new meaning.

There's a whole ethical debate on this sort of imagery: can national security be weakened by US citizens being repulsed by the carnage our weaponry is capable of? Imagery impacted US public perceptions of the war in Viet Nam, and we've advanced a lot technologically since then.

I realize I'm off topic by here, but whining about maglev (pun intended) seems silly in comparison. As with jets and computer fans and traffic noise, maglev's purpose is considerably more benign. We can work around or get used to the sound.

Unless it's an AIM-9 Sidewinder. They require almost no fire control circuitry beyond a power-on switch, a trigger, and a feed to the pilot's earphones. From some web site:

In order to fire a missile, the pilot listens in his headset for the signals of the missile. As soon as the missile is uncaged, the pilots hears a 'seeking tone'. As soon as the missile has acquired a target, the tone changes into a 'growl', varying in pitch according to the quality of the lock.

An F-16 with 2 ea 2,000 lb bombs on the wing will not turn as hard as an F-16 with only missiles. No matter how hard the pilot wants it to.

Well, for one, the aircraft can't if it's heavier.

But all 7.5 or 9G-limited fighters I know of do have overrides with the hard limit being much higher.

Interesting article about automatic terrain aviodance in fighters: F-16 GCAS.

Schwa? F-16's have had IFF capabilities going back to 1986 for some models. BAE just received a contract to provide AIFF for USAF F-16C aircraft as well. The basic technology is present in my Piper Cherokee, for that matter.