Name your most hated weapon/vehicle/military equipment and explain

>>34267425
The Ak47/AKM, people are stroking themselves off to a rifle even the Russians are phasing out.

File: 200px-Close-In_Weapon_System.jpg (19KB, 200x280px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 200x280px

>>34267425
well desu I can't debate that, you're absolutley right

for me that would be pic related

>never detects the target
>only time where it shot a target it was a friendly plane
>looks autistic
>waste of money

>>34267474
im not even a Ak fag and I know thats bait next time look at a confessions thread all there is to see are ar-15 fags talking about how their beloved rifle is boring and souless

File: m113.jpg (78KB, 600x377px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x377px

>>34267425
Reason: It's a piece of shit

>>34267496
Somebody missed the houthis shooting AShMs earlier this year.

>>34267530
>the houthis shooting AShMs earlier this year.
their Iranian missile couldn't reach target
twice

CIWS never did anything

File: Su-30_8.jpg (245KB, 1000x609px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1000x609px

>>34267425
The SU-30 but it applies to most Su-27+++ variants
>massive RCS
>huge inefficient and obsolete engines
>inferior PESA radar that vatniks love to masturbate to despite being crude compared to western contemporaries
>only ever used by subhuman countries
>sacrifices a lot because retarded russians forced the super maneuverable meme
>lousy/non existant combat record
>inferior weapon choises compared to western contemporaries
>only useful as a propaganda tool
>doesn't even look that good

File: M18 Hellcat.jpg (66KB, 736x559px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 736x559px

I can't say I hate it, but it's 2000% overrated and misunderstood.

>General Bruce is the first Sonic autist
>"TDs gotta go fast!"
>Forgets that a "Tank Destroyer" should probably be able to destroy tanks.
>A dozen of his pet projects get shot down for the stopgap M3 and M10
>Gets assmad, forces the development of the T67 to shit out the T70
>No armor to speak of
>Barely adequate gun
>All of this for the sake of mobility
>the kicker; the mobility is only viable on road marches
>in actual combat conditions, the open top and light armor result in M18 crews moving about more cautiously than M10 and M4 crews
>Crews are terrified of being killed by MG fire, snipers, or their own tanks because torsion bars for some reason.
>Outclassed in every sense relevant to it's role by the M36, already set for production
>The only way to effectively use them is to perform maneuvers and operations that were borderline suicidal
>American gung-ho Hotrod culture makes it seem like a brilliant TD, when it's success was entirely down to crew training

It was good, but it wasn't nearly the lightning-speed tiger killer that people make it out to be. Given it's success in Africa and as an indirect fire support platform, I'd say the M10 was a superior TD and combat vehicle in general.

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (134KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1280x720px

>>34267425
All Yuro-canards are pretty sucky but the most overhyped of the all is the Rafale by far.
>hideously expensive
>uses special snowflake munitions
>poor data link capability
>to this day still no BVR missile
>sacrifices a lot to be carrier capable despite frances only carrier spends most of it's time in dry dock and is just a remnant of france pretending to be a world player
>only real tender they won was India and they only did so by lying through their teeth about costs
which lead to India slicing the order by 70%
>pretty much inferior to the super bug on most accounts but frogs keep hyping it like the best fighter ever
>loses to Gripen more times than not when competing for sale,with good reason

>>34268163
(you)

>>34267952
Having actually driven an M-18 offroad, I can say it's pretty fucking terrifingly fast.

As in "Oh holy balls I cannot look at the IP as it is a blur, and I think I just swallowed a chunk of coyote"..

The gun was pretty good for it's time, and there was work on cramming a 90mm in there, but it was a dead end. Plus, it had a turret traverse rate that belonged on a amusement park ride. As in "Run a bit of rope through the brake, charge people to be swung in a circle at ridiculous speeds". The one I worked on the most had a good sized dent in the tube (not through to the bore though) from someone taking out a light-post with the tube.

File: 8G2P2048.jpg (3MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2000px

Ho-229.
The vehicle itself is mediocre, but the amount of crap perpetrated by its fanboys it absurd. Claims such as:
-Could have changed the course of air war
-First stealth fighter
-Best fighter of war
-Totally stable in flight even though it lacked any computers
-Americans directly copied it for the B2

Top that off with the complete ignoring of Jack Northrop and his work regarding flying wings, which went on before and after the Horten Bros., and nearly everyone who champions this experimental failure comes off looking like a total Wehraboo jackass.

>>34268835
>Ho-229.

It would have made a neat sailplane....


Otherwise, yeah, it was an act of desperation, propelled by engines of near suicidal unreliability..

>>34267952
reeeee. I wish it weren't true.

>>34267425
t. Tejas shill

>>34268835
>Totally stable in flight even though it lacked any computers
I don't know the specifics of the Horton flying wings, but it is possible to make a flying wing stable in flight. You're just fucked during stalls and spins.

File: can too.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>34267496
it can definitely detect targets, in fact sometimes it freaks the fuck out because a wave looked extra super scary. I'm unaware of any instance of CIWS shooting any friendly plane, but would love to learn more if you have any sources. It's kinda shaped like a dick with a second dick coming out the side, but it dances and I like that about it. and the land based model does quite a bit to protect airbases and what not out in durka-durka land. >expensive: yes
>waste: debatable
>fuckin awesome level: above average

>>34267425
I've been on a hate binge ever since a hue monkey suggested replacing the A-10 with the Super Tucano, I don't even like the A-10 but trying to use the cheap line to convince the USAF the branch that kills enemies by dropping tonnes of money on them doesn't work. Especially when there's better homegrown COIN craft like the Scorpion

>>34267555
C802 Noor, chinese. At least that's what they used for that UAE trimaran

>>34269342
monkeys love their little super tucano. It flies for pennies! Yeah man, I understand that the Apache, Lancer, Thunderbolt, and Strike Eagle are overbuilt for blasting various towelheads, but how much flight-hour costs contribute to the overall cost of the war is proobbaabbllly not enough to really have any meaningful impact

>>34269342
It's always the smaller forces trying to peddle their domestic designs and obsessing over them.
See how many Canadians constantly whine about the Avro Arrow being a failure. The US has has more awesome projects end up as failures or cancellations than most nations have had wind up as successful designs, don't know why they always cry but Americans regard their failures as "That's just the way it is."

File: oshit1.gif (4MB, 300x219px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 300x219px

>>34267425
But, do you have one?

It doesn't really matter that much what your fighter support is, the important determining factor is you have fighter support and the other assholes don't.

>>34268376
Sorry froggy, but your plane is more meme than the F35.

File: image.jpg (3MB, 2641x2075px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2641x2075px

>implying none of you wouldn't fuck this thicc lady

File: americanpsyops.png (90KB, 320x272px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 320x272px

>>34268888

>>34269994
I want to lick F-35's belly!

File: yrb49northrop.jpg (511KB, 2779x2251px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 2779x2251px

>>34268835
Everytime I see some jackass say the Ho229 is the direct descendant of the B2 I want to fucking shove pictures of Jack Northrop down their throats until they die.

File: AIR_Eurofighter_Austria_AS001_Rollout_lg.jpg (121KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 800x600px

>>34267425
>>34268163
Of the latest European meme triangles, the Eurofighter defenitly deserves your hate. Probably the most expensive of the lot if you want full performance(somewhere in the future), a logistical clusterfuck with parts being manufactured by tons of different companies all over Europe.
Austria paid out the ass for theirs but could not keep up with the additional hidden costs and as a result their Eurofighters are crippled beyond belief by only being able to carry a single short range AA missile and has no air to ground capability at all.
It is also worth of mentioning that Eurofighter sales involve bribes and corruption fuckery that Gripe and Rafael could only dream of.
Then you have the problem with the continued lackluster ground attack mode which is why Eurofighter operators are still forced to rely on the Tornado to get that capability.
You also have the ownership issue with the contract being a nightmare of legalese bullshit where the Eurofighter consortium technically owns all your jets, forces you to sign up for upgrades that are severly delayed, charges you a 150% penalty if you lose an airframe even in wartime conditions.
Upgrading the Eurofighter is also a exercise in bullshit where you might as well buy a new airframe due to the cost involved getting the aircraft up to date.
The whole Eurofighter project makes the F-35 deal look clean and and easy in comparison and most potential operators would be better served to buy any other triangle by far.

File: b36.png (7KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 420x420px

>ITT: Hamburgers shit on Europlanes while praying no one mentions the F-35

>>34271404
The f35 was a Budget boondoggle, but it actually works now.
It works well aspects it was designed to.

The f22 is a bigger meme plane if you wanna make that argument.

File: F35.webm (647KB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 720x404px

>>34271454

>>34271484
Catapult testing
Solo?

>>34271492
are you schizophrenic? it's just a webm of a f35 attempting to take off :^)

>>34269342
rip AT-6

>>34271501
Amazing joke fellow Redditor!

>>34267952
U wot?
Okay, a bit of a history lesson first. The US Army had a bit of a brown alert moment when Germany swept through France with fast armor assaults, and scrambled to figure out a counter (This was up to and including throwing rifles into the tracks of an advancing tank: the 1903s lost). What they settled on was the Tank Destroyer branch.
Under this system, the front line divisions would hold back an attack long enough for the tank destroyers to set up in defensive positions behind the line, at which point the front units would retreat, and the attack would be met with the massed firepower of the TDs. For this, they didn't need any armor whatsoever, and in firepower, ammunition capacity was tantamount to gun performance, but it absolutely needed to be fast. The first designs included M3 Half tracks with 75mm field guns, and 1 1/4 ton Dodges with 37mms.
Bruce was given the job of leading the Tank Destroyer branch, and the only thing he was interested in was a vehicle to fulfill that role. The early vehicles were just too soft, and the M10 was really no better than a sherman at the TD mission. Hence the whole idea of the M18.
I explain this because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Tank Destroyer in the American sense is supposed to do. Will directly respond to your post below, because every single point you made is wrong in some way.

File: 7056137b0a87cf1ba7bb77a39c2ade46a9b441e722b2efa50fd253ee137f6b15.jpg (15KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 375x375px

>>34271563
your humor is just too advanced for us to understand, too sophisticated, huh. you have truly ascended the pillar of jokes and now your mature, manly, absolutely knee-slapping humor is above us all.

>snowflake munitions
Spot the yank.

>>34271573
>>34267952
Calling the 76mm gun "Barely adequate" and "Unable to kill tanks" is retarded on a level that I'm not quite sure I can properly express. It can kill 85.5% of all tanks produced by Germany during the war from an arbitrary distance frontally, and if we allow for an engagement from 300m, that number jumps to 98.6%. I want to stress, I actually went out and ran the numbers on this one, and this is before taking into account half tracks, armored cars, and other vehicles you'd encounter on the battlefield.

>the kicker; the mobility is only viable on road marches
Are you serious? In a tank you don't just drive across a fucking field waiting to get shot at. The m18 driver isn't fucking puttering around in 3rd because he's scared that Tigers are gong to fall from the fucking sky if he touches the clutch, no, you move from cover to cover. A tank moving up at twice the speed is exposed for half as long, and who cares if they spend twice the time in cover, because it's the stationary tanks that tend to kill the moving ones. That's also why it has an open turret, in common with other US TDs, it makes for the best possible visibility.

>Crews are terrified of being killed by MG fire, snipers, or their own tanks because torsion bars for some reason.
While a few units flat refused to take delivery of them, everyone who actually used the hellcat in combat was fairly fond of the vehicle; for instance, there's a lot less to break in a torsion bar system when compared with VVSS springs on any M4-based vehicle.

>Outclassed in every sense relevant to it's role by the M36, already set for production
You mean the one that would go into production a full year after the M18 was being delivered to units? That one?

In conclusion, you probably like the Firefly too, you fucking cockgobbling giant prancing homo man.

>>34271313

You're criticising the Tranche 1 jets, which were long known to be not worth fully upgrading as if they were the entire programme. Germany did indeed Jew the shit out of the Austrians on that deal, that is the Germans being Germans, not the aircraft. The simple fact is that unlike the Rafale and Gripen, the Eurofighter is an air superiority jet (& interceptor) which was designed to work alongside other ground attack aircraft, so naturally its ground attack capabilities were introduced later (it has used its own targeting pods for some years now). The Rafale and Gripen are shit because they overreach and claim to be able to do everything, whereas the Eurofighter is being run as the most capable air superiority fighter in service outside the USA (plus being an excellent interceptor as well), which will fight alongside the F-35.

I have no idea what the French are thinking, they are crucifying the future of their air force and naval air on a single platform on the behalf of their defense industry.

>>34268835
>-Totally stable in flight even though it lacked any computers
No, it's dooable. The center of lift just has to be behind the center of mass, just like any plane. Notice how the jets are almost on the front of the aircraft, pushing the CoM forward, and see how the wings are swept back behind them, pulling the CoL backwards.
I agree, though, the German Meme Dorito is overrated as hell.

>>34269749
That's just one single canadian who is a pest on this board, or it's some kind of forced meme.

File: NH-90_-_RIAT_2013_(9348037795).jpg (1MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1365px

This fucking thing
>muh copter of the future
>fly by wire and all that fancy shit
>cant land on even slightly rough terrain due to shit ground clearance
>electrical system just doesn't fucking work

>>34271902
Sure, yeah, you're correct on all counts.. but it looks cool.

>>34267425
Yeah, except for Swedes, and extremely poor dudes, non retards buy F/A-18 Hornet rather than Gripen.

>>34267496
>What is airspace control
Just make friendlies avoid the engagement zone and things will be okay.

>>34271902
The New Zealand Air Force was offered choice of either a squadron of Black Hawks or a squadron of UH-1Y Venom's for next to nothing to replace their squadron of ageing UH1 Iroquois.

They chose that piece of shit instead.

File: AIR_A-10A_Armed_Over_Germany_lg.jpg (98KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x600px

The A-10
>only created to kill the AH-56 program
>obsolete since inception
>useless meme gun
>slow
>bad range
>utterly useless in contested airspace
>repeatedly kept on life support by dumb old men with outdated knowledge
>shitty memes
>retarded fanboys
>waste of money

>>34272001
Almost got in an argument with my dad about that stupid gun, apparently they built it up huge back in the 80s like that it could kill every Soviet tank by itself.

>>34271699
>The center of lift just has to be behind the center of mass, just like any plane.

It's not that simple at all.

Firstly, this is just for longitudinal stability (ie: pitch axis) this isn't the main problem for flying wing aircraft; the main problem is directional stability (yaw axis) because the whole point of flying wings is to not have a vertical tail.

There are ways of combating this inherent directional instability of flying wing designs. There is wing sweep: a wing with more sweep has less lift and less lift means less drag, so a flying wing with swept wings will automatically try and correct yaw, as the trailing wing will have more sweep, and therefore less drag, than the leading wing.
This effect is limited in practice though, Northrop combined it with small vertical stabilisers in their early flying wings.
There is also wing twist, specifically washout, that turns the tips of the wings into limited stabilising surfaces, however this effect is even weaker than the sweep effect; afaik the Horten brothers used combination of the above for their sailplanes and prototypes.

Modern flying wings like the B-2 use a combination of wingsweep, reactive control surfaces and fly by wire to combat their directional instability.

---

Secondly, for pitch/longitudinal stability, simply having the CL behind the CM isn't enough, it needs to stay there across a decent range of AOA.
As AOA changes, CL can move, because not all lifting surfaces react proportionally to a change in AOA.

>>34272008
almost brought it up with my dad once and he spouted the most facebook tier garbage i've ever heard about it, triggered me hard. this meme needs to die.

>>34269289
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Incidents

>>34272029
Out of these four it seems to be that only two can be directly attributed to some sort of failing with the system itself.
>10 February 1983
The drone itself was the cause of the damage and deaths, you could make a case that perhaps a larger round than the 20mm would have caused total break up.
>11 October 1989
Re-engaging a downed target is definitely a fuck up with the Phalanx.
>25 February 1991
Targeting chaff is definitely a fuck up with the Phalanx.
>4 June 1996
Seems like the gunnery officer fucked up with the orders so not the fault of the Phalanx.

More than 20 years without an incident though.

>>34269994
I couldn't figure out what this was until I realized it was an upside down F-35.

>>34271313
>You also have the ownership issue with the contract being a nightmare of legalese bullshit where the Eurofighter consortium technically owns all your jets, forces you to sign up for upgrades that are severly delayed, charges you a 150% penalty if you lose an airframe even in wartime conditions.

I didn't know Israel was in charge of Europes fighter program.

>>34267671
Literally fatnik

>>34271563
Clearly the webm was to show how advanced the F-35's stealth is. The truck was put in front of the wheels as a reference point to the plane taking off.

>>34267671
Vatniks will defend this aircraft hands and nails, even if it means making really dumb claims like PESA being better than AESA and that AESA was 'leaked' to the west by Russia as a diversion from superior PESA designs. I shit you not, I've seen vatniks make such a claim. Obviously if AESA is GaN-based, then it's the best radar though, since the T-50 is totally having it anytime soon.
>>34272088
>Butthurt Boris

>>34267425
>Ridiculed in every acquisition contest except when bribes where involved/it was given on extremely weak financial term/was chosen simply because it was cheaper
Bitter frog detected, mad about how Gripen performs good enough at half the price and vastly decreased logistical footprint, trumping his meme Rafale at every turn.

>>34271939
>tfw Denmark almost chose the F18 over the F35, but ended up getting the F35
I-it's going to be okay, r-right?

>>34269994
Is that a Glock?

>>34272324
Are you blind? Obviously, it's a FAMAS.

>>34267671
I mean, this could apply to most Russian planes honestly

>>34272142
You can also find vatniks who claim that the Ibris-E can detect the F-35 out to 400 km because muh peak power. At the same time they somehow manage to forget that the Su-30 has a fuckhuge RCS somewhere about 5-15m^2 whereas even the Eurotriangles all have less than 1 m^2.

>>34272302
The biggest risk Denmark faces is that you cannot afford the high cost of operating the F-35. Denmark is not exactly poor but it is a small nation with limited resources. If the upkeep gets too high, airframes will get grounded and pilots get less hours in the air.
That might lead to a situation where Denmark both lacks the pilots and aircraft to perform continuous combat operations and end up like Austria with their Eurofighters.

>>34272001
>gun is excellent for shredding ragheads
>raghead AA struggles to shoot it down
It might get shit on by an actual first world military, but you have 10 seconds to name a better paki-blaster than the A-10

>>34272442

On the other hand, with the sheer number of F-35 in operation, the economies of scale means that compared to the other available 4.5 & 5th gen options available to Denmark, the F-35 should be fairly reasonable. Globally there are planned to be over 3,000, with over 500 of those to be operated by those in the European region (including Turkey and Israel). The USA is making this their primary combat jet so they have actually put a lot of effort into reducing operating costs.

A large part of that is the development of the most realistic simulators possible, the cost per hour of operation for a simulator is a fraction of flying a modern combat jet.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-next-gen-simulation-preps-f-35-units-for-b-421462/

http://f35.com/in-depth/detail/f-35-training-gains-altitude

>>34272593
That's reassuring, even if I'll desperately miss the aesthetics of the F18 flying low over the kingdom.
>tfw you're old enough to remember both draken and f16's making low passes over your village, back when proper summer exercises were a regular thing for the armed forces
I'll always love that dank, swedish meme-machine, but the yank fighters did give me a boner.

>>34272593
An issue with going with the F-35 is that you become absolutely reliant on the US for support and high-level maintenance for the 30 some years that the aircraft will be in service, previous gen jets often had deals about domestic production of some parts and so on

>>34272637

The F-35 supply chain is very global, and all the depot-level maintenance contracts must be bid on and are divided out on a regional basis (North America, Europe, and Asia/Pacific). For those who partnered on the development, most have got a decent set of manufacturing contracts http://www.f35.com/global

For example, this is the result of the 2021-2025 repair work bidding:

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/uk-australia-score-big-f-35-repair-work-agreements

File: garbage.jpg (10KB, 280x180px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 280x180px

This piece of shit right here

>>34267425
>Glorified HAL Tejas
The HAL Tejas is a division all of it's own when it comes to being shit.
Being in development for over thirty years ending up significantly worse than the least capable European alternative in every conceivable way, despite India having vastly more resources and money available. By the time they get the Tejas II or even just the Tejas Mk.I A in order their European competitors have gotten their latest iteration in production leaving the Tejas in the dust of the designated shitting street.

>>34272084
kek

>>34272706
Can you explain this?

>>34272593
>>34272698
While that might become true there is still a risk that the F-35 might become a maintenance hog that larger and better funded air forces can deal with but leaves the smaller ones struggling.
Then again it might become the F-16 of our age with spare parts spilling out of every hangar in abundance.
It's useless to speculate now, we will have to wait until the F-35 is actually delivered in numbers to Europe.

>>34267511
Lmao it got number one on the top ten infantry fighting vehicles

>>34272775
>Then again it might become the F-16 of our age with spare parts spilling out of every hangar in abundance.
Based on LRIP-10, that's what's gonna happen.

>>34272532
F16 with 1000 lb jdams

>>34272752
SLQ-32 EW suite.

>educated guesswork: the system
>current missile decoys associated with it are roughly two decades behind because muh hardkill needs funding
>maintenance hog, but at least it's not>>34267496
>EA variants obsolete
>v6 a shit

File: 1470418553602.jpg (261KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1600x1200px

>>34267425
I can't really work up genuine animosity, but I hate the implications of the F-16 and F-35.

They're fine vehicles in-and-of-themselves, but their wider impact in reducing the diversity of aircraft types bothers me. (Because you basically trade in 3 jets and get 1 back, great if you're an accountant and shit if you're a planespotter.)

This is perhaps doubly true because of the export success of the F-16, although this is mildly hypocritical as the export-success that was the F-5 is one of my favourite types.

>>34272883
I understand your frustration but you still have to understand the sheer effectiveness of the Viper makes up for it. I remember distinctively when it came out and attended a ground-pounding competition with a bunch of brand new interdictors, strike fighters and tactical bombers and just sweeping the entire fucking thing.

>>34272927
how is the F-16 such a good aircraft?

>>34267952
90mm M18 is my tankfu

>>34272949
I don't fucking know man but the fact Sprey absolutely hates it all the way down to the Block 1 -A while being so goddamn good is just icing on the fucking cake. Sad to see that the airframe is just plain tapped out at this point. The F-16XL program would have kept it going for some time longer simply because we wouldn't have run out of internal volume to use for all the new kit. At least the F-35 finally looks like the teething problems are through and the costs are dropping.

>>34272883
Planespotters will never be taken into account when it comes to procurement.

The USAF and USN has far fewer types of aircraft today than it ever has, and no one would say that either branch is less capable.

>>34267425
so is it actually a bad plane or do you just blindly hate it because you associate it with it sweden? lol

>>34272883
Must be nice to work in the Airforce. Always have a bed to sleep in, get to fly awesome jets, apparently there are massive foam-parties while on base...

File: Northrop A9.jpg (260KB, 1800x1195px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1800x1195px

>>34272927
I mean, I don't deny the performance is good. I just have a preference for redundancy and no direct investment in how well it performs. (So simplistically, replacing half of all F-16s with F-20s is a net gain to me because it means more shiny jets, even if one of them can only fly about 15 miles with drop tanks.)

>>34273014
>Planespotters will never be taken into account when it comes to procurement.
Well yeah. Still, you'd think we could play up inter-service rivalries, arbitrary export restrictions, weird corporatist policies, etc, until we reach an arrangement that leaves everyone but the taxpayers and mechanics happy.

>>34269289
We gave a 20mm cannon that fires at 75rds/s to a robot with PTSD.

>>34272414
I've seen vatniks add the words 'peak power' in their incoherent buzzword blabber trying to scare people without any technological knowledge away. Maybe that's what they were trying to say.

Don't worry, stealth doesn't work, unless it's Russian of course.

>>34272949
Its initial design left enough room to grow, while at the same time ic came around just in time to enjoy the benefits of computer control. From a aircraft with a T:W of practically 1 with full fuel and missiles, it has evolved to lower kinematic performance ( lower T:W, higher wing loading, increased stability) but higher mission performance.
Combined with the fact that it's a light fighter (and therefore relatively cheap*), the ability to act as a bomb truck (again, at significant cost to kinematic performance), and the backing of the largest air force on the planet, you get a fairly successful aircraft.

*the F-16 has roughly 80% of the overall performance of the F-15 at 60% of the cost. Better performance in some aspects. So for missions which don't require 100% performance, it is superior.

For example, operation Opera used F-16s as bomb trucks and F-15s as fighter cover, as the 15s could carry a full A2A load there and back plus 10 minutes reserve full afterburner for combat. The F-16s dumped empty fuel tanks, bombed, and got out sanic fast.

>>34272532
>way more expensive to operate than an actual COIN aircraft
>not one bit more effective