#1756553 - 02/17/06 01:42 AM
Re: Eagle vs. Viper
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 43
MANDINKA
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 43
|
Is anybody in here a pilot in the military? I am currently a studen at embry-riddle aeronautical university. I plan to go fly F-16s for the national gaurd, and would like to ask a few questions about life as a fighter pilot.
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT HE WHO HESITATES IN WAR..... IS HE WHO HESITATES IS LOST
|
|
#1756554 - 02/17/06 05:46 AM
Re: Eagle vs. Viper
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 43
MANDINKA
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 43
|
Hey guys,
Nothing personal, but to understand why I say the F-15 is more menueverable than almost anything in the sky, is to understand the difference between menueverabilty and agility. Some of us are exchanging the two with each other as if they are the same. But they're not
Also the F-16 might be more "agile" but, it has a very hard time gaining more or defeating the ENERGY of the migs and Flankers(this would also be very true if it were to enter a dog fight with a F-15. this why i personaly don't believe it will always win) this is a major reason why it's so hard to get these aircraft of your tail once they get behind you.
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT HE WHO HESITATES IN WAR..... IS HE WHO HESITATES IS LOST
|
|
#1756558 - 02/17/06 10:37 AM
Re: Eagle vs. Viper
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 17
GOYA_551st
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 17
Louisville, Kentucky
|
Ignore the pilot if you want, but no airframe has ever shot down an enemy. It's always been a pilot. A well trained pilot knows his and his enemy's strengths and weaknesses and can win in a lesser airframe. The 15 would probably be considered a lesser airframe as far as turn fighting goes (though no slouch, by any means), so what will he do? My guess is take the fight to the vertical where he has an advantage. the 16 pilot just can't stay with those big P&Ws in the vertical if the 15 driver knows what he's doing. And he does, more than likely. Although, it doesn't really apply here, check this out: Like anything else there is no simple answer, so this could be rather long. The first reason is that the pilots work at it so damn hard. It starts at the FTU. An F-18 Top Gun graduate, flying an exchange tour in the Eagle, said he learned more about air to air at the F-15 FTU, then he did at Top Gun. The F-15 FTU has traditionally been the hardest to get through; in my class we started with 6 and ended with 4, at a time when the other FTU's were washing vitually nobody out. At one point they were having a hard time getting UPT students to select the F-15C, because they were so worried about making it through the course. The FTU attitude, by the way, was "fine, if they're that afraid, we don't want them." Once you get to an operational unit, that workload doesn't decrease. There was an IP upgrade debrief recently here at Langley that started at 2000 hours (8:00 P.M. in human time), and went till 0600 (6:00 A.M.) the next morning. Even then it wasn't finished; they just took a break to eat and grab some sleep. Oh by the way, that was just the debrief; it doesn't include the brief prep time which usually starts the day before, the brief (an hour straight of Evelyn Wood speed talking), and the actual flight. Contrast that to some air forces I've seen where the attitude is "what time is the 0900 brief?" Once everybody meanders into the brief, the highest ranking officer is automatically the flight lead with no respect to abilities, and then the debrief consists of singing Kumbaya about how well everything just went. The bottom line to all that, is that getting better at air to air requires commitment and brutal honesty; there were times as a Captain leading a four ship I told a Lt Colonel, in no uncertain terms, to sit down and shut the f**k up in my brief/debrief. There are certain cultures that don't allow for these factors, and as a result consistently do badly. My experience is that Western air forces that I've flown with (mostly NATO members) have been uniformly competetent, because they have the technical background and dedication required.
A second factor is specialization. The F-15A/C does nothing but air to air; although, this will change sooner or later (sooner actually). This allows for an incredible amount of thought about the most basic of details. The simple placement of a CAP can be, and has been, debated for hours/days. The tactics manual for the F-15A/C is the size of a large phone book, and a pilot is expected to be familiar with it all. At this point it is the only fighter left in the world doing nothing but air to air.
Third are the avionics. The F-15C has traditionally had the USAF's best avionics; it was the only aircraft in Desert Storm cleared to fire BVR without AWACS authorization. Because of those avionics it generally gets the first shot or positional advantage in the intercept. It has always gotten the newest toys (AIM-120, AIM-9X, JHMCS, AESA radar) first. You're mistaken in some of your assumptions about avionics. The F-14A/B radar was dog crap for fighter vs fighter combat. It was, no doubt, great for over water against bombers (interceptor mission), but till the F-14D it was mediocre for the fighter mission.
Fourth, is the airframe. Again using the F-14 as a comparison, the F-14A was an underpowered G-limited piece of crap; there was no doubt in my mind when I was in maneuvering fight whether the KittyKat was an A model or a B/D model; there was a significant difference in performance. The F-14A is the only jet I've gone pure on at 12.000 feet and gunned. If I had tried that on an F-15/16/18 I would have had my lunch handed to me. The public conception of the F-15's maneuverability was generated early on when it was only a 7.33G aircraft. With the OWS, the F-15 was a 9G jet, and once two 9G aircraft face each other the difference in the fight will be determined most often by pilot skill (see points one and two above) and sustained maneuverability. Sustained maneuverability, though, will take an eternity (in air combat terms) to make a difference though, so pilot skill is the more important of the two factors.
Fifth is the supporting cast. The F-15, and every other USAF fighter goes to war supported by AWACS, Rivet Joint, Compass Call, tankers, etc... All of these assets have practiced together at Flag sorties, and in the last decade in semi-combat conditions in Northern and Southern watch.
Regards, Murph
|
|
#1756559 - 02/17/06 12:11 PM
Re: Eagle vs. Viper
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
MigBuster
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
UK
|
Well getting back to the game - in a guns only dogfight with me in a Viper - against the ACE AI in an F15 there is only one winner - me every time! Certainly everything Ive ever read would suggest that the F15 is pants compared to the F16 when it comes to out turning each other (as far as airframes go!). The F16 being newer and having an unstable airframe do give it a massive edge.
'Crashing and Burning since 1987'
|
|
#1756560 - 02/17/06 01:26 PM
Re: Eagle vs. Viper
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 694
Schwalbe
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 694
|
Originally posted by GOYA_551st: Ignore the pilot if you want, but no airframe has ever shot down an enemy. It's always been a pilot. A well trained pilot knows his and his enemy's strengths and weaknesses and can win in a lesser airframe. The 15 would probably be considered a lesser airframe as far as turn fighting goes (though no slouch, by any means), so what will he do? My guess is take the fight to the vertical where he has an advantage. the 16 pilot just can't stay with those big P&Ws in the vertical if the 15 driver knows what he's doing. And he does, more than likely.
Although, it doesn't really apply here, check this out: Like anything else there is no simple answer, so this could be rather long. The first reason is that the pilots work at it so damn hard. It starts at the FTU. An F-18 Top Gun graduate, flying an exchange tour in the Eagle, said he learned more about air to air at the F-15 FTU, then he did at Top Gun. The F-15 FTU has traditionally been the hardest to get through; in my class we started with 6 and ended with 4, at a time when the other FTU's were washing vitually nobody out. At one point they were having a hard time getting UPT students to select the F-15C, because they were so worried about making it through the course. The FTU attitude, by the way, was "fine, if they're that afraid, we don't want them." Once you get to an operational unit, that workload doesn't decrease. There was an IP upgrade debrief recently here at Langley that started at 2000 hours (8:00 P.M. in human time), and went till 0600 (6:00 A.M.) the next morning. Even then it wasn't finished; they just took a break to eat and grab some sleep. Oh by the way, that was just the debrief; it doesn't include the brief prep time which usually starts the day before, the brief (an hour straight of Evelyn Wood speed talking), and the actual flight. Contrast that to some air forces I've seen where the attitude is "what time is the 0900 brief?" Once everybody meanders into the brief, the highest ranking officer is automatically the flight lead with no respect to abilities, and then the debrief consists of singing Kumbaya about how well everything just went. The bottom line to all that, is that getting better at air to air requires commitment and brutal honesty; there were times as a Captain leading a four ship I told a Lt Colonel, in no uncertain terms, to sit down and shut the f**k up in my brief/debrief. There are certain cultures that don't allow for these factors, and as a result consistently do badly. My experience is that Western air forces that I've flown with (mostly NATO members) have been uniformly competetent, because they have the technical background and dedication required.
A second factor is specialization. The F-15A/C does nothing but air to air; although, this will change sooner or later (sooner actually). This allows for an incredible amount of thought about the most basic of details. The simple placement of a CAP can be, and has been, debated for hours/days. The tactics manual for the F-15A/C is the size of a large phone book, and a pilot is expected to be familiar with it all. At this point it is the only fighter left in the world doing nothing but air to air.
Third are the avionics. The F-15C has traditionally had the USAF's best avionics; it was the only aircraft in Desert Storm cleared to fire BVR without AWACS authorization. Because of those avionics it generally gets the first shot or positional advantage in the intercept. It has always gotten the newest toys (AIM-120, AIM-9X, JHMCS, AESA radar) first. You're mistaken in some of your assumptions about avionics. The F-14A/B radar was dog crap for fighter vs fighter combat. It was, no doubt, great for over water against bombers (interceptor mission), but till the F-14D it was mediocre for the fighter mission.
Fourth, is the airframe. Again using the F-14 as a comparison, the F-14A was an underpowered G-limited piece of crap; there was no doubt in my mind when I was in maneuvering fight whether the KittyKat was an A model or a B/D model; there was a significant difference in performance. The F-14A is the only jet I've gone pure on at 12.000 feet and gunned. If I had tried that on an F-15/16/18 I would have had my lunch handed to me. The public conception of the F-15's maneuverability was generated early on when it was only a 7.33G aircraft. With the OWS, the F-15 was a 9G jet, and once two 9G aircraft face each other the difference in the fight will be determined most often by pilot skill (see points one and two above) and sustained maneuverability. Sustained maneuverability, though, will take an eternity (in air combat terms) to make a difference though, so pilot skill is the more important of the two factors.
Fifth is the supporting cast. The F-15, and every other USAF fighter goes to war supported by AWACS, Rivet Joint, Compass Call, tankers, etc... All of these assets have practiced together at Flag sorties, and in the last decade in semi-combat conditions in Northern and Southern watch.
Regards, Murph Good article. Something new learned. Especially never knew the 15 IS a 9G aircraft now. If we consider RL environment the Eagle certainly has the lead. Basically, in an A2A engagement, knife fights don't happen that often. Fighters will throw heat-seeker missiles at each other before the merge, and every plane feels like a pig at such close range compared to missiles. Things like these are hard to compare because there are too many variables. Let's just say if they are in a similar situation, they are both dead. IMO vertical fights are hard to handle. You're a sitting duck hanging in there. Even in a 1v1 fight when it's doable, the later versions of the viper like block50s are no less powerful than the eagle. I would suggest the eagle driver bring the fight to low speed. F-15 is like the Mig-29 who performs well at lower speed. The F-16, on the other hand, doesn't like it slow. Thus giving the eagle a definite advantage.
|
|
#1756561 - 02/17/06 02:17 PM
Re: Eagle vs. Viper
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
|
Originally posted by GOYA_551st: Ignore the pilot if you want, but no airframe has ever shot down an enemy. It's always been a pilot. A well trained pilot knows his and his enemy's strengths and weaknesses and can win in a lesser airframe. The 15 would probably be considered a lesser airframe as far as turn fighting goes (though no slouch, by any means), so what will he do? My guess is take the fight to the vertical where he has an advantage. the 16 pilot just can't stay with those big P&Ws in the vertical if the 15 driver knows what he's doing. And he does, more than likely.
Although, it doesn't really apply here, check this out: Excelent article inded, thanks for posting GOYA! But I do think that nobody here is ignoring the "pilot factor" and I doubt that anyone doubts that the "pilot factor" is perhaps the most important of all factors. I think that everyone or most here (well at least, me) are giving it's oppinion of which aircraft should be better in a dogfight situation ONLY (doesn't include BVR combat) AND in a "hypothetical" situation where we could have pilots that have the same skills and/or training levels in both the F-15 and the F-16 (if that was ever possible). Well, my 2 cents....
|
|
#1756562 - 02/17/06 02:39 PM
Re: Eagle vs. Viper
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 249
Jex =TE=
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 249
UK
|
Originally posted by FreightDog: To add what my friend said, here is another email I got from him when asked specifically how an Eagle could defeat a Viper in a visual fight.
**Dude, loaded question! The answer is simple: The Eagle will ALWAYS defeat the Viper!! Actually, my experience fighting Vipers has shown that the best way to kill them is to get slow and force them to overshoot. The Vipers typically have more thrust than the Eagles (depending on configuration) so it's hard to defeat them in a rate fight. Eagle drivers can capitalize on the fact that the Pork Falcon has AoA limiters and other software limitations on their flight control system; the Eagle has no such limiters so you can force an overshoot if he's at close range with lots of closure by yanking the stick all the way back and stopping the jet and the Viper flies right by (kinda gay, but it's like Top Gun, "hit the brakes and he'll fly right by.")** Surely this is pre-supposing that the viper pilot cannot see he is being set up for an overshoot, and doesn't take into account that the flight control can be over-ridden? This also states that the viper is closing fast at close range - what happens if he's not closing fast and at medium range?
|
|
|
|