>>28625542 Because during the design process a number of changes were made to the F-15, mostly feature creep, that made the plane both heavier and more costly per unit. Which was the same thing that happen to the F-4 and the F-15 was made to replace the F-4. The MiG-21 was far cheaper, needed less maintenance, and more maneuverable then the F-4. Thus rising a issue that even with a favorable kill ratio is the resources been used for such planes causing favorable outcomes.
>>28625650 >implying maneuverability matters in modern dogfights
The weapon system that got the most kills during the Vietnam war were with AIM-9 short range missiles. Also the AIM of the day was not all-aspect and there was real doubts (that later disproved) that the AIM-9L would not live up to being a all-aspect missile.
Then enter a number of US allies lead by Saudi Arabia demeaning that US sell them their latest and most advanced planes, non of the made for export stuff like the F-5. So the USAF need a new plane that does not have top shelf tech (because of security risks) to sell it's less trust able allies that they themselves would be fielding in believably large numbers.
The US has sold F-15s to only a handful of countries. Saudi Arabia was only given the F-15 in 1981 as part of the Camp David Accords to make them happy and even then were limited to only getting 60 air frames till later on.
TL:DR the F-16 is a thing because the USAF did not know what the future of fighter would be like and they needed something other then the F-15 to give our "allies".
And yet it has performed great in any war it has ever been in. An air force with a larger number of F-15s and no F-16s would have been more effective, just like how it would have been better to build more F-22s rather than develop a completely new fighter.
>Take all the personal that would have been used to maintain all the F-16s >Move them to maintenance duty for F-15s >Don't buy more F-15s than you can afford to maintain at a reasonably high rate of readiness
>>28627192 Throwing people at a job rarely makes it much faster - for example, if you're boroscoping an engine, you only need two people; one lying in the intake or exhaust to spin the turbine and one to operate the boroscope. Throwing more people at it does nothing.
You're also limited in how many targets you can hit - an F-15E may carry more bombs, but a pilot can only spend so much time in the cockpit before fatigue becomes dangerous.
Some pilots flying over Iraq and Syria are spending ~10 hours in the air and only taking out a couple of targets, because that's all that's needed. In those cases, it's far better to have a cheaper solution.
>>28625542 The Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program was a United States Air Force technology evaluation program initiated in the 1960s by a group of officers and defense analysts known as the "Fighter Mafia". It was spurred by then-Major John Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory of maneuverability, which indicated that excessive weight would have severely debilitating consequences on the maneuverability of an aircraft. Boyd's design called for a light-weight fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio, a gross weight of less than 20,000 pounds (9,100 kg; half that of its counterpart, the F-15 Eagle), and high maneuverability. It resulted in the development of the General Dynamics YF-16 and Northrop YF-17. Late in the program, in 1974, with the promise of European sales, the Air Force changed the program name to Air Combat Fighter (ACF), and committed to purchasing 650 models of the YF-16, adopted as the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The U.S. Navy adopted a modified version of the YF-17 as the F/A-18 Hornet.
>>28627135 Except the F-22 isn't great at ground strike, it can only haul 1k bombs, has no optic targeting system, has a combat range similar to a Super Bug, and only has 4 external weapons stations, and is nearly twice the unit price of an F-35.
>>28627444 Both often kill the other even WVR. However, Viper pilots will admit that they're inferior in BVR. This wasn't always true, there was one weird time period where the F-16 was actually momentarily superior because the F-15 fleet hadn't gotten an upgrade yet and the F-16 had a lower RCS, meaning it saw the F-15 first.
>>28626892 >Because during the design process a number of changes were made to the F-15, mostly feature creep, that made the plane both heavier and more costly per unit. That's rich, considering the F-16 suffered FAR more feature creep and weight growth. Remember, the F-16 wasn't even supposed to have a radar, let alone bombs and shit initially. At least the F-15 was truly air-to-air only (as the Mafia intended) for the first few years of service.
>>28627516 The F-16 turned out fine and the F-35 probably will too (and even the F-4 was pretty damn respectable all things told). Boyd & gang brought some valuable points to the table but they weren't 100% right about what a warplane should prospectively be. General Dynamics did just fine.
>>28627505 You can blame the USAF for the feature creep. Initially, the F-16 was just a day fighter. However, when congress reduced the number of F-15s the USAF could purchase and required them to buy F-16s the USAF bumped the specs of the F-16 as a result.
>>28627434 >it can only haul 1k bombs, has no optic targeting system
All of which can be added in later for much cheaper than making a new plane.
>has a combat range similar to a Super Bug
It has the combat range of super bug with three external fuel tanks, all on its internal fuel capacity. You say that like it is a bad thing somehow. Never mind it can also get to a location a hell of a lot faster than a Super Bug does.
>and only has 4 external weapons stations
It's the quality of the stationes (i.e. how much weight they can haul) not the quantity. The F-16 has three hardpoints per wing yet you can't place bombs on the inner most hardpoint because it will cause severe turbulence over the wing.
>and is nearly twice the unit price of an F-35.
Are you seriously comparing a plane that is only had a production run of ~150 planes to one intended to manufactured in the thousands? You just went full retard. I wish you had done that at the beginning so I wouldn't waste my time. Never mind the fact that the F-22 is more expensive than the F-35 because it is more capable. It is like suggesting the F-16 is a better craft because it is cheaper than the F-15.
>>28627603 >the F-35 can even do it via enemy emissions. Only at reduced range. RWRs don't provide range information and you can't loft a missile without range data. You won't be making an 50 nmi AMRAAM shot without a full 3D fix. That's why the APG-77 (and presumably the -83 as well) can use interleaved tracking with occasional active blips to fill in range info.
>>28627287 >In those cases, it's far better to have a cheaper solution.
You mean like drones? Funny, those also solve the issue of pilot fatigue as well. Either way you look at it, the adopting of the F-16 was a mistake. It was only considered because a short sighted congress was trying to fuck over the military, who were still butthurt about Vietnam. If Reagan had been president then this would have never happened.
>>28627621 >You can blame the USAF for the feature creep. More like all the *other* NATO customers who went "GIVE IT XYZ AND TAKE MY MONEY." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM And again, it's for the best. The F-16 wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful or useful if GD hadn't made it a multirole.
>>28627680 RWRs can provide range information if you're fusing sensor between jets, like on the F-35. Radar is by no means irrelevant, but passive targeting is becoming big.
>>28627702 Drones are a partial solution, but you also have to consider quality vs quantity. I'm not arguing for Sprey's "let's build 3x as many 1960s era tanks", etc theory, but you do need a reasonable middle ground, not so you can fight a war of attrition, but so you can achieve better concentration of force and be more flexible with your strategy.
>>28627680 >RWRs don't provide range information Not by themselves. Several working in concert can narrow the skies to an extreme degree, possibly even enough to get a solution, depending on their spread.
I've got no clue how much that would apply to altitude information, though, which is fairly important for getting a firing solution.
>>28627725 In those cases, it's definitely true. That's the point of the F/A-18. To replace the short ranged and cheaper A-7 and F-8 and work alongside the more expensive but highly capable F-14s and A-6s.
>>28627676 >All of which can be added in later for much cheaper than making a new plane. Designing it for the task from the ground up will always be superior, and how, exactly, are you going to "adjust" the design to fit bigger bombs?
>It has the combat range of super bug with three external fuel tanks, all on its internal fuel capacity. You say that like it is a bad thing somehow. Never mind it can also get to a location a hell of a lot faster than a Super Bug does. And the F-35 has 150% of the Super Hornet's range on just internal.
>It's the quality of the stationes (i.e. how much weight they can haul) not the quantity. The F-16 has three hardpoints per wing yet you can't place bombs on the inner most hardpoint because it will cause severe turbulence over the wing. The -35 has six, and both bombs and tanks can be in the innermost, bombs/missiles on center, and the outer two for AMRAAMs or Sidewinders.
>Are you seriously comparing a plane that is only had a production run of ~150 planes to one intended to manufactured in the thousands? You just went full retard. I wish you had done that at the beginning so I wouldn't waste my time. Never mind the fact that the F-22 is more expensive than the F-35 because it is more capable. It is like suggesting the F-16 is a better craft because it is cheaper than the F-15. It's more capable at Air Superiority. It's gimpy at being a multirole. And the F-35 has superior Passive and Active sensors in RF, IR, and Visual spectrums, as well as a significantly better datalink and RAM composition/application. Overall the F-22 was just designed too early.
>>28627680 RWR's? Sure, but the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda isn't just an RWR, it's a full-fledged passive EWO suite.
>>28627757 >>28627762 >Triangulating direction data between jets Sure, that's just great as long as you have multiple jets in position to do so and the environment is permissive enough to communicate the data between them. >I've got no clue how much that would apply to altitude information, though, which is fairly important for getting a firing solution. Pretty sure the F-22 and F-35 can use their main radar aperture for passive tracking - effectively a 2d RWR (azimuth and elevation) for anything noisy enough (in X-band of course) in the forward sector. If you can resolve range, you've got a 3D fix. Triangulation would allow this, IRST could allow this through angular rangefinding (if the target's size is known), and interleaved passive/active mode radar allows this, and given the LPIR properties of the radars in question it can be done with minimal likelihood of betraying your own position (and even if they DO spot your illumination, it won't give them the range info needed to shoot back effectively at those ranges).
>>28627895 >Sure, that's just great as long as you have multiple jets in position to do so and the environment is permissive enough to communicate the data between them. >F-35s would ever be flying alone in hostile airspace
>>28627781 >Sure, but the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda isn't just an RWR, it's a full-fledged passive EWO suite. Whoop-de-friggin-do. Even so you aren't going to get precise range info out of it. You can "hear" the signals, how "loud" they are and what direction they come from, but none of that will give you more than a rough estimate of distance.
>>28627906 It wasn't in the slightest. It was a different role entirely. The A-3 and A-5 were nuclear delivery vehicles. The F-14 is an interceptor/fighter. The A-6 is an Attacker. The A-7 is a LIGHT ATTACKER. The F-8 was a LIGHT FIGHTER. This is literally Hi-Lo mix. I'm sorry, that's just how it is in this case.
>>28627959 >Only two F-35s talking You seem to be confused about something. The F-35 supports 3 simultaneous pencil-beam links over the MADL. That's comms with not just other F-35s, but also to AWACS, to coordinating command, pretty much any data source, over a mesh network linking the battlespace into one big picture, and a single F-35 is a data gathering beast. A dozen across a few hundred miles is a net nothing can escape from.
>>28627962 And now the Navy's about to have two multirole fighters, one of which is slightly heavier and significantly more expensive and more capable all around. Yet you insist it's the "lo." Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit here.
>>28627993 Right now MADL can only communicate with other F-35s. Compatibility for other platforms will come in time, but until then.
>>28627959 They could already be in position; MADL is designed to operate with other jets >100km away and it's been suggested in interviews that common tactical formations for F-35s will have them spaced quite widely to capitalize on having a distributed sensor network.
>>28628008 I'm not that guy. I jumped in after you complained that the Legacy Hornet wasn't really the Lo. I'm of the opinion that when the F-35C gets into service, it'll become the new Hi and the Super Hornet will become the new Lo. While the previous Lo (The Legacy Hornet) is being replaced, that doesn't mean its replacement is the Lo, like the anon you were talking to earlier was saying.
It doesn't matter HOW advanced your passive systems are - the information simply isn't there. You need one more piece to finish the puzzle - be it an active blip from your radar or a friendly to give you another line to intersect your own. >>28627993 >X capability makes Y capability completely irrelevant!!!1 Please. I'm not trying to argue that it's infeasible. But triangulation between multiple aircraft is not the ONLY option, nor is it one you can always rely on. The radar is still there for a reason. >A dozen across a few hundred miles is a net nothing can escape from. Quite the blanket statement you have there. What if the target has sidelobe-suppressed radar, so only one F-35 can get a fix at a time? What if it uses other LPIR techniques to bamboozle your passive RWRs? What if it (*gasp*) turns it's radar off altogether?
You seriously lack imagination if you can't think of a single scenario where a target could slip past a web of passive-only F-35s.
>>28628018 >They could already be in position; MADL is designed to operate with other jets >100km away and it's been suggested in interviews that common tactical formations for F-35s will have them spaced quite widely to capitalize on having a distributed sensor network. Not only that, but with stealth, a distributed formation means that if one element is detected and enemy forces turn to engage them, they'll end up being flanked by the unseen element. Or if the enemy breaks defensive, they might break in a way which makes for easy kills from the supporting formation.
>>28628128 What's more is that even if one element is detected, that means their sensors are focused in that direction. Well, probably, anyways. That means that the supporting element, if it's properly spaced, could easily be outside of the sensor arcs.
>>28628146 What's to understand? >Take a pinwheel, a blowtorch and a fan >Use the pinwheel to power the fan >Use the fan to feed air to the blowtorch >Use the blowtorch to spin the pinwheel That's pretty much all there is to it. Hell of a lot easier to understand than an automagic transmission, anyways.
>>28628018 >Compatibility for other platforms will come in time, but until then. It's worth noting that MADL achieves it's spot-beam directionality by using a completely different band than other TDLs like Link 16 (with the exception of satcom datalinks). You'd need to use an entirely different radio to send and receive over these other TDLs.
Furthermore, it's looking like MADL is falling out of favor in general, much like the F-22's own IFDL has. I'm thinking they need to just stick with Link 16 in the mean time until they fully sort out their priorities for a next-gen TDL.
>>28629475 The barrels are ballast tanks, the computers are flight test instrumentation computers; they're used when flight testing airliners to ensure that they're safe when operated at their extremes (in terms of where people, fuel and luggage are positioned in the aircraft). It's important because if there's too much weight at the front of a jet, it can be too hard to keep the nose up and result in dangerous landings. If there's too much weight at the rear, the jet can become unstable or tip onto it's tail when on the ground. Generally though, they're there just to simulate typical passenger loads, with the tests being to check the cruise performance, etc. Using barrels is generally a lot easier and arguably safer than (eg) lead weights.
On the link you gave, half of those things are fire suppression aircraft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho8fn6XUJ34
>>28629578 You mean this stuff? http://www.makeleio.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/chemtrail16.jpg That's just pump for the water.
Or if you mean this stuff: http://www.makeleio.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/chamtrail1.jpg Those are the water / suppressant tanks for this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_747_Supertanker You can see the patent for those tanks here: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=07413145&IDKey=BE5053FE958B%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D7413145.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F7413145%2526RS%3DPN%2F7413145
>>28629646 Every part of it is important for creating thrust and keeping the engine running.
Airliner turbofans generally have more turbine (and sometimes compressor) stages than fighter jet turbofans though - that's because they're trying to build and capture as much energy as possible in the core of the engine.
In other words - plenty of compressors to build higher pressures, to create more compact thrust, to provide more energy for the turbine (which has extra stages) to capture, more energy and turn it into mechanical energy to spin a giant fan at the front, which then generates more efficient thrust. It's like saying that the valves and crankshaft in your car engine don't produce thrust - they don't, but without them the pistons and the engine overall doesn't can't operate.
Problem with high bypass turbofans though is that while they're powerful and fuel efficient, they suck for high speeds, because they need to have a large diameter, and because a fan can't really push air faster than the speed of sound, meaning that when you approach the speed of sound, your thrust generated from your fan gets close to zero.
Jet turbofans instead only send 0.5% of their intake air or so around the engine (compared to the 80% for the high bypass).
That means that their fan doesn't have to be very big, which means they don't need as much mechanical power, which means they don't need as many turbine stages.
>>28629646 >>28629700 And because they have less turbine stages, their thrust comes from the combustion of fuel and the accelerating of air / exhaust gases up to supersonic speeds (because you're accelerating the air with combustion / a continuous explosion, instead of a mechanical fan).
And how well does the F-16 turn whilst weighed down by ordinance and fuel pods? Lightweight fighters are more affected by any additional weight you put on them in comparison to heavy fighters like the F-15, which has enough thrust to fly even with only one wing.
That's a moot point because F-15 wasn't very good at air-to-ground either when it was first introduced. Then the F-15E came around........
The F-22 could very easily be upgraded to use a wider variety of air-to-ground weapons. And in fact, the air force is planning to do just that. But these upgrades are taking forever because a certain other fighter is soaking up all the $$$.
>>28625542 US military Light Fighter Program. They wanted a plane that was smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the F-15 that also had multirole capability (vs the air superiority dedication of the F-15C). They were worried they wouldn't be able to afford enough F-15's to fill all missions they needed. The YF-16 and YF-17 were prototypes developed for this program, the F-16 was obviously selected. There was an interest in the US and in other countries of replacing their F-4's, F-104's, and F-105's. The YF-16 entered a competition with other european small fighters and won because of its lower cost, better range, and better maneuverability. It was also better than the YF-17
tl;dr the F-16 was a cheap multirole counterpart to the F-15. Also exports.
The analogy of F-15 > F-22 and F-16 > F-35 is accurate.
>>28630087 The F-22 already has the ability to carry the SDB, IIRC. Also, making it do ground attack isn't a priority when the F-35 will do ground attack better and cheaper.
Maneuvering is capped by the human body. Anything beyond 9 Gs will render a human pilot unconscious.
Now the F-22 actually has a system in place where the plane will go beyond 9 Gs for one big, fast turn as a last-ditch attempt to dodge an incoming missile. The plane automatically goes into autopilot afterwards until the pilot wakes up.
>>28633670 >Maneuvering is capped by the human body Your right, of course, but don't discount new methods of increasing resistance to high Gs like drugs, gene-therapy, distant future stuff like ant-grav, etc.
I'm just saying that it is foolish to abandon maneuvering.
>>28633839 Airframes can also only handle so many Gs; most fighters can handle ~11-14G without catastrophic failure, and even then a jet that pulls 9Gs needs a serious inspection to make sure nothing's cracked.
>>28634094 You make it sound so easy, Anon. Fighter to fighter gunfights are hard. And firing from a turret would be pretty much the same as it is now minus the need to lead a target. Were talking about laser fights in space now. Are we going to get in trouble with the mods?
>>28635583 Fighter to fighter gunfights are hard because you're restricted in how you can aim. At range, if you juked 100m in a second, the turret would barely have to move to correct for that. The turret would also be automated like today's ones, making it nearly impossible to miss.
>And even if they did planes don't generate heat while flying
>don't generate heat
You do realize that a turbofan is an *internal combustion engine* that uses the expanding gasses caused by the intense HEAT of burning fuel in order to propel itself. It doesn't fly by shitting rainbows out of the unicorn inside.
You also realize that hundreds of aircraft have been killed by heat-seeking missiles like Sidewinders. If planes didn't generate heat from flying, the missile would just blast off aimlessly until it ran out of fuel or crashed.
Basically, you evade the enemy in such a way that the person trying to kill you ends up losing control of his plane and crashing. This types of kills are typically unintentional.
The most famous example would probably be the time (during the gulf war) that an American EF-111 Raven was intercepted by an Iraqi Mirage. The F-111 had no air-to-air weapons so it did the only logical thing: run away. The Mirage pursued but found itself unable to get into a kill position against the faster Raven. The Raven kept dodging the missiles. Apparently, in desperation to get close enough to score a hit with his last remaining missile, the Iraqi pilot ended up crashing into a nearby mountain. That's a maneuver kill.
>>28638869 Specifically, the Raven got down low, had the Mirage chasing it and then an F-15 started targeting the Mirage - Mirage pilot shit himself / got disorientated for a second and slammed into a hillside:
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.